■■:■  ■     ■>    ■-■•     >   '  ■  ■"'■■      ■<'   ■      ■  - 


I  v 


$$ 


s$& 


Si 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 

Class 

NEW  JERSEY  AS  A   ROYAL 
PROVINCE 

1738  to  1776 


BY 

EDGAR  JACOB  FISHER,  A.  M. 


SUBMITTED   IN   PARTIAL   FULFILMENT   OF   THE   REQUIREMENTS 

FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
191 1 


4 


Co 
MY    FATHER 


232980 


PREFACE 


With  the  publication  of  this  monograph,  there  is 
completed  a  detailed  study  of  the  colonial  history  of  New 
Jersey.  Dr.  Tanner's  exhaustive  and  admirable  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  comprises  the  period  from  the  early 
settlements  to  1738,  when  the  executive  union  with  New 
York  was  terminated.  From  that  time  until  the  Revo- 
lution, the  compass  of  this  study,  New  Jersey  enjoyed  a 
separate  royal  establishment  in  all  departments.  The 
purpose  of  this  work  is  twofold.  An  attempt  has  been 
made,  first,  to  outline  the  political  history  of  the  prov- 
ince, and,  second,  to  show  the  part  taken  by  New  Jersey 
in  the  Third  and  Fourth  Intercolonial  Wars  and  in  the 
preliminaries  of  the  Revolution.  The  subject  has  been 
pursued  to  the  threshold  of  the  convention  which  for- 
mally declared  the  overthrow  of  the  royal  provincial 
government  and  adopted  the  first  constitution  of  the 
state. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  the  available  manu- 
script and  printed  sources  have  been  used.  The  pub- 
lished volumes  of  the  New  Jersey  Archives  include  docu- 
ments relating  to  the  colonial  history,  the  journal  of  the 
governor  and  council  in  administrative  session,  of  the 
council  in  legislative  session,  and  newspaper  extracts 
pertaining  to  the  province.  The  Nevill  and  Allinson 
editions  of  the  colonial  laws,  The  Papers  of  Lewis  Mor- 
ris, and  selections  from  the  correspondence  of  William 
Alexander,  Earl  of  Stirling,  are  some  of  the  other  im- 
7]  7 


8  PREFACE  [8 

portant  printed  original  sources.  There  is  a  wealth  of 
manuscript  material  for  the  later  colonial  history  of  New 
Jersey.  The  following  are  in  the  State  House  at  Tren- 
ton :  the  Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  State 
Library,  the  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  office 
of  the  Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  Liber  AAA 
and  Liber  A  B  of  Provincial  Commissions  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  Minutes  of  the  Council 
of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey  and  the  Minutes  of  the 
Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey  are  still  kept  at 
Perth  Amboy  and  Burlington,  respectively.  These  rec- 
ords are  of  such  value  to  the  student  of  New  Jersey  his- 
tory that  they  should  be  acquired  by  the  state  for  pre- 
servation in  the  State  Library.  In  the  library  of  the 
New  Jersey  Historical  Society  at  Newark,  the  manu- 
script sources  include  the  papers  of  Lewis  Morris,  Rob- 
ert Hunter  Morris,  James  Alexander,  Ferdinand  John 
Paris  and  Joseph  Sherwood.  In  the  same  library  there 
are  also  copies  of  the  original  papers  of  Governor 
Belcher  referring  to  New  Jersey.  The  originals  are  in 
the  possession  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 
In  the  library  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  at 
Philadelphia  there  are  two  volumes  of  New  Jersey  manu- 
scripts, and  miscellaneous  letters  from  the  Penn  Collec- 
tion, that  are  of  value  and  interest  for  this  subject. 

To  those  who  have  aided  him  in  gaining  access  to  the 
sources,  the  author  is  deeply  indebted.  The  kindness 
and  courtesy  of  the  librarians  and  their  assistants  of  the 
State  Library  at  Trenton,  the  New  Jersey  Historical 
Society  Library  at  Newark,  the  Pennsylvania  Historical 
Society  Library  at  Philadelphia  and  the  Jersey  City  Pub- 
lic Library,  is  most  gratefully  acknowledged.  He  is 
likewise  under  obligations  to  Mr.  Adriance  Lyon,  Regis- 
ter of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors,  and  Mr.  H.  S.  Haines, 


9]  "      PREFACE  g 

Surveyor  General  of  West  Jersey,  for  the  use  of  the  pro- 
prietary records.  Dr.  Tanner's  suggestions  regarding 
the  primary  sources  were  of  distinct  service,  and  his 
work  upon  the  earlier  period  of  the  history  of  New  Jer- 
sey has  been  of  great  assistance  in  interpreting  the  later 
period.  To  Professor  Herbert  L.  Osgood,  of  Columbia 
University,  the  author's  most  grateful  thanks  are  due. 
The  work  was  pursued  under  his  guidance  and  helpful 
criticism,  and  he  gave  generously  of  his  time  to  reading 
and  preparing  the  manuscript  for^the  press. 

Edgar  J.  Fisher. 
New  York  City,  February  14,  1911. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 
The  Governor— Position  and  Personnel 

PAGE 

Introductory  Statement 21 

New  Jersey  under  the  proprietary  government 21 

Royal  government  in  New  Jersey — the  Union  period 22 

The  movement  for  a  separate  governor 22 

Position  of  the  Governor 24 

The  Royal  Governors  from  1738  to  1776 25 

Lewis  Morris,  1738  to  1746 25 

Estimate  and  sketch  of  his  career 25 

His  commission  and  instructions 29 

Jonathan  Belcher,  1746  to  1757    . 30 

Estimate  and  sketch  of  his  career 31 

His  commission  and  instructions ^7 

President  Reading's  administration,  1757  to  1758 37 

The  three  brief  administrations 38 

Francis  Bernard,  1758  to  1760 38 

Thomas  Boone,  1760  to  1761 39 

Josiah  Hardy,  1761  to  1763 39 

Their  commissions  and  instructions 40 

William  Franklin,  1763  to  1776 41 

Estimate  and  sketch  of  his  career 41 

Attitude  during  the  Revolution 42 

Minor  Executive  Offices 43 

Lieutenant  Governor 43 

Provincial  Secretary 44 

Other  Officers 46 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Council—Position  and  Personnel 

Position  of  the  Council 48 

Dual  capacity — administration  and  legislation 48 

11]  11 


12  CONTENTS  [I2 


PAGE 


The  governor  and  legislative  sessions  of  the  council 48 

Territorial  division  recognized  in  the  council 50 

Personnel  of  the  Council 51 

General  character  of  the  councillors 51 

Morris's  council 52 

His  appointments 53 

Predominance  of  proprietary  influence  ....       60 

Belcher's  council 60 

His  appointments 60 

Ashfield's  contest  for  a  seat  in  council 62 

Struggle  between  Belcher  and  the  proprietors  for  appointments.  66 

Council  changes  under  Bernard,  Boone,  and  Hardy 67 

Franklin's  appointments 69 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Assembly — Position  and  Personnel 

Position  of  the  Assembly 73 

Rights  and  powers  of  the  assembly 7^ 

Alternate  sessions  at  Perth  Amboy  and  Burlington 73 

Plan  of  representation yy 

Important  rules 80 

Personnel  of  the  Assembly 81 

General  character  of  the  assemblymen  .    .   .   .  ' 81 

The  assemblies 82 

Members  of  the  Eleventh  Assembly,  1738  to  1740 82 

Members  of  the  Twelfth  Assembly,  1740  to  1743 84 

The  three  annual  assemblies,  1743  to  1746 84 

Members  of  the  Sixteenth  Assembly,  1746  to  1749 87 

Members  of  the  Seventeenth  Assembly,  1749  to  1751 88 

Members  of  the  Eighteenth  Assembly,  1751  to  1754 89 

Members  of  the  Nineteenth  Assembly,  1754  to  1761 89 

Members  of  the  Twentieth  Assembly,  1761  to  1769 89 

Members  of  the  Twenty-First  Assembly,  1769  to  1772    ....  91 

Members  of  the  Twenty-Second  Assembly,  1772  to  1776   ...  93 

Method  of  election 94 

The  Colonial  Agent 95 

Theoretical  and  actual  position  of  the  agent 95 

Method  by  which  the  assembly  controlled  the  agent 95 

Personnel:  Partridge,  Sherwood,  Wilmot,  Franklin,  De  Berdt .  98 


I3]                                          CONTENTS  13 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  IV 

Legislative  History— The  Morris  Administration 

Character  of  the  Constitutional  Conflicts 101 

Conflicts  common  to  all  the  colonies 101 

Conditions  peculiar  to  New  Jersey 102 

The  character  of  the  land  system 102 

Quakerism 103 

The  two  capitals 103 

Chief  Subjects  of  Legislation  under  Morris,  Belcher  and  Franklin.  104 

Legislation  under  Governor  Morris 105 

The  Eleventh  Assembly,  1738 105 

Contest  over  the  support  bill 107 

Results  of  the  first  assembly  under  a  separate  governor  ....  108 

The  Twelfth  Assembly,  1740 109 

Lack  of  harmony  shown  in  the  addresses,  1740 no 

Legislation  for  the  West  Indian  Expedition no 

Peaceful  session  of  October,  1741 in 

Morris's  rejection  of  the  ^40,000  act,  1742 113 

The  Thirteenth  Assembly,  1743 115 

Governor  and  council  reject  assembly's  favorite  measures  .   .   .  115 

The  indiscreet  publication  of  the  fee  bill 115 

Refusal  of  the  assembly  to  amend  the  militia  act,  1744  ...    .  116 

The  Fourteenth  Assembly,  1744 117 

Continued  refusal  to  amend  the  militia  act 117 

Quarrel  between  assembly  and  council  over  public  affairs  ...  118 

Hunderdon  county  loan-office  commissioner  dispute 121 

The  Fifteenth  Assembly,  1745 123 

Revival  of  old  quarrels 124 

Disagreement  over  support,  paper  money  and  militia  bills       .  124 

Dispute  about  the  place  of  meeting 126 

The  Sixteenth  Assembly,  1746 129 

Hunterdon  county  loan-office  election  again 129 

Militia  act  passed 130 

Support  act  contest 130 

Legislation  under  President  Hamilton 131 

The  Sixteenth  Assembly,  1746 131 

Legislation  regarding  the  Canadian  Expedition 131 

The  anti-proprietary  outbreaks,  1747 131 


I4  CONTENTS  [I4 


CHAPTER  V 


PAGB 


Legislative  History— The  Belcher  and  Franklin 

Administrations 

Legislation  under  Governor  Belcher 132 

The  Sixteenth  Assembly,  1747 132 

The  congratulatory  addresses 132 

The  support  bill  passed  does   not   satisfy  the  governor  and 

council 134 

Activity  of  the  rioters  calls  forth  legislation 136 

Trouble  with  counterfeiters 137 

The  assembly's  favorite  bills  passed   .' 138 

Beginning  of  the  contest  over  the  quotas  act,  1748 139 

Assembly's  attitude  toward  rioting  and  counterfeiting    ....  140 

The  Seventeenth  Assembly,  1749   .   . 142 

Quotas  act  and  support  act  disputes 143 

Refusal  of  assembly  to  pay  the  Morris  salary  arrears 145 

Fifth  failure  of  the  quotas  act,  1750 147 

Case  of  the  five  Burlington  County  judges 148 

Assembly  attempts  to  force  removal  of  Sheriff  Riddle    ....  149 

Continued  strife  over  the  quotas  act,  1751 150 

The  Eighteenth  Assembly,  1751 151 

Quotas  and  support  bills  finally  passed 152 

Subsequent  difficulties  regarding  the  quotas 153 

The  Riddle-Bonney  controversy  again 154 

Renewal  of  the  land  troubles,  1752 155 

The  royal  order  for  a  revised  edition  of  the  laws 155 

Case  of  Sheriff  Anderson,  1753 157 

French  and  Indian  affairs,  1754 157 

The  Nineteenth  Assembly,  1754 158 

Assembly  refuses  to  revise  the  militia  act 159 

The  war  necessitates  frequent  sessions 159 

The  paper  money  controversy,  1757 162 

The  Legislative  Sessions  under  President  Reading 162 

Legislation  under  Governor  Bernard 164 

The  Nineteenth  Assembly,  1758 164 

Bernard  and  the  Easton  Indian  Conference 164 

Harmony  between  the  branches  of  government 165 

Legislation  under  Governor  Boone 165 

The  Nineteenth  Assembly,  1760 165 

The  Twentieth  Assembly,  1761,  passes  a  two-year  support  act.    .  165 

Legislation  under  Governor  Hardy 166 

The  Twentieth  Assembly,  1761,  concerned  with  military  affairs.  166 


I5]                                          CONTENTS  15 

PAGB 

Legislation  under  Governor  Franklin 167 

The  Twentieth  Assembly,  1768 167 

After  the  war,  much  profitable  general  legislation 167 

The  extra-legal  session  at  Perth  Amboy,  1765 168 

Legislation  for  supplying  royal  troops 168 

Bills  affecting  representation  in  the  assembly,  1768 168 

The  Twenty-First  Assembly,  1769 169 

The  demonstrations  against  lawyers,  and  legislation 169 

^"100,000  act  and  assembly's  refusal  to  supply  troops  .....  169 

The  Twenty-Second  Assembly,  1772 .....  169 

The  new  representatives 169 

Controversy  about  East  Jersey  treasury  robbery 170 

Increasing  estrangement  between  governor  and  legislature  .    .  170 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Proprietary  System  and  the  Land  Troubles 

The  Proprietary  System 171 

The  unique  character  of  this  system  in  New  Jersey  after  1702  .   .  171 

The  East  Jersey  proprietors 172 

Who  composed  the  proprietary  council 172 

Council  meetings  and  proprietary  officers 172 

The  personnel  of  the  East  Jersey  council 173 

The  West  Jersey  proprietors 174 

Democratic  character  of  landownership   .   .   .   .  • 174 

Council  meetings  and  officers 175 

The  personnel  of  the  West  Jersey  proprietors 175 

The  Land  Conflicts  in  New  Jersey 176 

The  conflicting  grants 176 

Early  history  of  the  Elizabethtown  and  Monmouth  tracts    ...  176 

The  claims  advanced  because  of  Indian  purchase 184 

Disturbances  during  the  Morris  administration 186 

Many  ejectment  suits  from  1741  to  1743 186 

The  Newark  riots  of  1745  to  1746,  and  results 187 

Outlook  during  President  Hamilton's  administration 191 

Partial  adjustment  during  Belcher's  administration 193 

Difficult  for  council  and  assembly  to  agree 194 

Legislation  upon  the  subject,  1748 195 

Perth  Amboy  riots,  1747                      197 

Petitions  to  the  crown  for  aid 198 

The  action  taken  by  the  home  government 200 

Essex,  Middlesex  and  Hunderton  county  disorders 202 

Causes  for  the  subsidence  of  the  troubles 204 

The  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery 206 


1 6  CONTENTS  [T6 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  VII 
Boundary  Disputes 

The  Northern  Boundary  Dispute  with  New  York 210 

The  point  at  issue 210 

Early  attempts  at  settlement 211 

Progress  during  the  Morris  administration 211 

Erection  of  Morris  county  revives  the  controversy,  1740   ...  211 

Governor  Clinton's  attitude  .   .  213 

East  Jersey  proprietors  petition  for  an  act  to  run  the  line,  1743.  214 

Progress  during  the  Belcher  administration 214 

Legislature  passes  an  act  for  running  the  line,  1748 214 

New  York  successfully  opposes  the  act 215 

The  pamphlet  discussion 217 

Erection  of  Sussex  county  renews  border  troubles,  1753.  •       •  221 

Movement  to  secure  a  temporary  line  fails      .       222 

Settlement  effected  during  Franklin's  administration 227 

Both  provinces  act  in  favor  of  a  royal  commission,  1763    .   -   .  228 

The  commissioners  and  their  report,  1769 229 

Dissatisfaction,  and  movement  for  an  appeal 232 

The  final  adjustment .   .  233 

Observations  upon  the  result 235 

Disputed  Claims  to  the  Ownership  of  Staten  Island 235 

The  Boundary  between  East  and  West  Jersey 236 

Early  attempts  to  fix  this  line 236 

East  Jersey  proprietors  run  the  line  ex  parte  in  1743  ...  237 

Effect  of  the  northern  boundary  decision  upon  this  line  .    .    .  237 

West  Jersey's  attitude  not  unjustifiable ...  238 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Judicial  System 

The  System  of  Courts        240 

Alterations  in  the  Judicial  System 241 

By  royal  instructions 241 

By  executive  ordinances  244 

By  legislation 248 

The  Riots  against  the  Lawyers,  1769 256 

Causes  of  the  riots    ....  ....  256 

The  assembly  investigation  .    .  •   •  256 

The  result  and  legislation  258 

Personnel  of  the  Supreme  Court •   •  262 

The  justices  appointed  to  the  bench 263 

The  Jones-Morris  controversy  263 

The  Provincial  Attorneys  General 271 


17] 


CONTENTS 


17 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Financial  System 

General  Character  of  Colonial  Finances  in  New  Jersey 273 

Expenditures  .  ...  273 

The  support  of  government 273 

How  salaries  were  paid  .    .  ...    274 

Character  of  a  support  bill  274 

Support  of  government  under  Morris  275 

Support  of  government  under  Belcher  ...  279 

Support  of  government  under  Franklin    ...       281 

Officers  petition  for  higher  salaries  282 

Taxation  in  New  Jersey        ...        .    .  284 

Method  of  apportioning  taxes      .   .       ...       .   .  285 

287 
289 
289 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 

294 
296 
298 
298 
299 
302 
304 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
308 
3ii 
312 
313 
315 
317 


Import  and  export  duties 

Excise  tax      ...  

Simplicity  of  the  system  of  taxation  

The  Bills  of  Credit . 

The  instruction  of  1740  and  the  attitude  of  the  home  government. 

Failure  under  Morris  to  pass  the  ^40,000  act  .  . 

Emissions  for  the  Third  Intercolonial  War 

Disallowance  of  the  ^"40,000  act  passed  in  1747  .   .    . 

Assembly  report  on  the  condition  of  paper  money  in  New  Jersey, 
1753  ... 

Emissions  during  the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War 

Repeated  failures  to  obtain  general  emissions  under  Franklin 
Requirement  that  the  bills  should  not  be  legal  tender 
Attitude  of  the  assembly 

Considerations  involved  in  the  paper  money  question 
The  Counterfeiting  Evil 

Grows  with  the  increased  use  of  paper  money 

Legislation  against  counterfeiting 

The  Morris  County  counterfeiters  in  1748  •    . 

Activity  of  Samuel  Ford  and  his  associates 
The  East  Jersey  Treasury  Robbery,  1768       .... 

Circumstances  of  the  robbery 

Connection  of  Ford  with  the  robbery        .    -    • 

The  long  legislative  deadlock 

The  assembly's  demand  upon  the  treasurer 

Treasurer  Skinner's  resignation  and  the  suit  against  him 
Assembly  Control  in  Financial  Affairs 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Governor — Position  and  Personnel 

With  the  growth  of  the  English  colonies  in  America 
in  influence  and  wealth,  the  royal  officials  became  more 
active  in  their  endeavors  to  bring  about  a  greater  de- 
pendence of  the  colonies  upon  the  crown.  To  obtain 
this  end,  the  system  of  royal  provinces  was  developed, 
that  is,  provinces  in  which  there  was  a  body  of  officials, 
appointed  by  and  receiving  instructions  from  the  crown. 
The  particular  circumstances  attending  the  transition,  of 
course,  differed  in  the  different  colonies,  but  the  object 
of  the  royal  officials  in  each  case  was  the  same. 

In  the  case  of  New  Jersey,  which  became  a  royal 
province  in  1702,  the  disordered  condition  of  the  pro- 
prietary affairs  made  the  change  not  altogether  unwel- 
come. Title  to  the  soil  of  New  Jersey  had  been  granted 
by  the  Duke  of  York  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  in  1664. 
By  subsequent  transfers  this  territory  became  sub- 
divided, Berkeley  receiving  West  Jersey  and  Carteret  East 
Jersey,  the  former  division  after  different  sales  coming 
into  the  hands  of  a  large  number  of  proprietors,  and  the 
latter  division  by  a  somewhat  similar  process  coming 
into  the  possession  of  twenty-four  proprietors.  East 
Jersey  affairs  were  managed  by  the  twenty-four  acting 
as  a  board  of  proprietors,  while  territorial  matters  in 
West  Jersey  came  to  be  managed  by  an  annually  elected 
council  of  proprietors.1 

1  For  the  details  of  these  various  transfers  see  Tanner,  Province  of 
New  Jersey,  ch.  i. 

2l]  21 


22  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [22 

The  deeds  of  lease  and  release  given  by  the  Duke  of 
York  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  granted  territorial  but 
not  political  rights.  Inasmuch  as  maintaining  political 
authority  was  a  necessary  accompaniment  to  the  success 
of  the  enterprise,  the  proprietors  assumed  to  exercise 
the  rights  of  government,  issuing  in  1665  the  Conces- 
sions and  Agreements  under  which  New  Jersey  was  to 
be  governed.  With  the  increase  in  the  number  and 
character  of  the  proprietors  came  a  natural  divergence 
of  interests,  resulting  in  the  formation  of  hostile  factions. 
The  doubts  regarding  the  legality  of  the  proprietors' 
claims  to  exercise  political  authority  added  to  the  unrest 
in  the  provinces.  A  contest  for  the  governorship  of 
East  Jersey  between  Andrew  Hamilton  and  Jeremiah 
Basse  brought  matters  to  a  climax  by  practically  nulli- 
fying political  authority.  In  1702,  surrender  was  made 
to  the  crown  and  New  Jersey  became  a  royal  province. 

The  authorites  in  England  did  not  see  fit  at  this  time 
to  appoint  a  separate  royal  governor  for  New  Jersey,  but 
gave  the  commission  of  governor  to  Lord  Cornbury, 
who  was  in  May,  1702,  appointed  governor  of  New 
York.  The  governorship  was  thus  held  jointly  with 
New  York,  but  in  other  respects  New  Jersey  had  its 
own  separate  and  distinct  organs  of  government.  It 
was  soon  realized  that  the  joint  governorship  was  not 
without  its  disadvantages,  so  that  there  developed  a 
decided  movement  for  the  appointment  of  a  separate 
governor  for  New  Jersey.1 

Although  surface  indications  of  this  movement  had 
appeared  before  1736,  it  was  not  until  that  year,  when 
Governor  Cosby  died,  that  earnest  and  concerted  efforts 
were  made  for  the  desired  end.     John  Anderson,  who  as 

'Tanner,  op.  cit.,  ch.  xiii. 


23 ]  THE  GOVERNOR  23 

president  of  the  council,  became  acting  governor  of  New 
Jersey  at  Cosby's  death,  sent  a  petition  to  the  king 
signed  by  himself,  the  council,  and  some  assembly  mem- 
bers.1 The  petition  cited  New  Jersey's  disappointment 
that  Queen  Anne  had  not  appointed  a  separate  governor 
when  the  royal  government  was  instituted,  and  men- 
tioned the  chief  arguments  that  were  used  to  support 
New  Jersey's  contention.  The  governor  resided  in  New 
York  and  preferred  the  interests  of  that  colony  to  those 
of  New  Jersey.  He  was  absent  from  the  latter  province 
for  sometimes  an  entire  year,  with  consequent  neglect  of 
public  affairs.  It  was  detrimental  to  have  one  governor 
for  the  two  provinces,  and  New  Jersey  could  support  a 
separate  governor.  For  those  reasons,  in  general,  was 
the  king  humbly  petitioned  to  appoint  a  distinct  gover- 
nor. At  the  same  time  the  Grand  Jury  of  Middlesex 
County  sent  a  petition  in  hearty  accord  with  the  petition 
sent  by  the  governor,  council  and  assembly." 

Two  months  later,  in  May,  1736,  the  Lords  of  the 
Committee  of  Council  submitted  to  the  Lords  Commis- 
sioners for  Trade  and  Plantations  for  their  examination 
and  report,  a  petition  to  the  king  from  Richard  Partridge, 
the  colonial  agent  of  New  Jersey,  adding  his  influence  in 
support  of  the  New  Jersey  idea.3  Sir  William  Keith,  a 
former  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  in  a  memorial  to  the 
lords  of  trade,  insisted  that  it  was  impracticable  to  faith- 
fully discharge  the  duties  of  governor  of  both  provinces 
and  regarded  himself  as  a  fit  person  to  explain  the  peti- 
tions that  had  been  laid  before  the  crown.4  In  August, 
1736,  Partridge  again  urged  the  matter  upon  the  author- 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  441. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  144.  *Ibid.,  p.  448. 

4  Keith  had  previously  applied  for  the  separate  governorship  of  New 
Jersey. 


24  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [24 

ities  in  a  long  petition,  giving  "  Reasons  Humbly  offer'd 
why  a  Separate  Governor  should  be  appointed  for  New 
Jersey,  and  ordered  constantly  to  reside  there.1 

But  notwithstanding  this  continued  petitioning,  when 
in  June,  1737,  Lord  Delaware  was  appointed  governor 
of  New  York,  he  was  given  the  commission  of  New 
Jersey  also.  Delaware  subsequently  resigned,  however, 
and  upon  the  appointment  of  Admiral  George  Clinton  as 
governor  of  New  York,  the  home^a^ithorities  decided  to 
grant  New  Jersey's  prayer  for  a  sepaTat^"gm^nor7~ap- 
pointing  LewislVl  orris  tojthatotjice.  Duly  grateful  for 
this  concession,  the  council  and  representatives  of  the 
province  sent  an  address  to  the  king,  acknowledging  the 
granting  of  their  petition,  expressing  the  hope  that 
trade  and  commerce  would  now  flourish,  justice  be 
speedily  administered,  and  with  the  blessing  of  happiness 
an  increased  population  result.  Entire  confidence  was 
expressed  in  the  person  whom  the  king  had  appointed.2 

Upon  his  appointment  as  chief  executive  of  a  royal 
province,  a  governor  was  given  a  commission  and  instruc- 
tions, the  former  of  which  was  published  upon  his  arrival 
in  the  colony,  while  the  latter  were  regarded  as  secret. 
The  commission  defined  in  general  the  powers  of  the 
governor  and  remained  essentially  unchanged  as  issued 
to  the  different  governors  of  the  province.  Morris's 
commission  in  1738  was  practically  the  same  as  Corn- 
bury's  of  iyo2.3r  "To  execute  all  things  in  due  manner 
that  shall  belong  unto  your  said  command  "  is  the  gen- 
eral executive  power  granted  to  the  governor. 

The  governor's  powers  in  his  relations  to  the  council 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  451.  ''■Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  58. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  1.  Morris's  commission  was  doubtless  copied  from  Gov. 
Montgomerie's,  because  the  latter's  name  appears  in  it  about  a  dozen 
times. 


25  ]  THE  GOVERNOR  25 

and  assembly  were  stated,  and  then  in  turn  his  judicial, 
ecclesiastical  and  military  duties  considered.1  As  with 
the  commission,  the  instructions  which  were  given  to 
successive  governors  also  remained  in  most  particulars 
the  same.  What  changes  did  occur  were  usually  in  the 
form  of  additional  instructions  issued  to  meet  particular 
circumstances  arising  in  the  colony,  rather  than  changes 
in  the  long  list  of  instructions  given  to  each  governor  at 
his  appointment.  The  instructions  supplemented  the 
commission  and  furnished  the  governor  with  more  de- 
tailed rules  for  the  conduct  of  his  office.2 

Although  Morris  had  been  recently  engaged  in  an  un- 
fortunate quarrel  with  John  Hamilton,  the  president  of 
the  council,  his  past  services  to  the  province  rendered 
his  choice  a  most  welcome  one  to  the  people  of  New 
Jersey.  For  a  just  estimate  of  his  career  it  is  necessary 
to  review  the  earlier  period  of  his  public  activity.  A  man 
of  bold  and  decided  principles,  he  was  a  prominent  figure 
in  the  affairs  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  for  many 
years.  Although  a  shrewd  politician,  Morris  was  no  less 
a  statesman.  His  fearless  stand  against  arbitrary  officials 
upon  more  than  one  occasion  during  the  early  part  of 
his  public  life  commands  admiration.3 

In  1692,  he  was  appointed  a  judge  of  the  court  of  com- 
mon right  in  New  Jersey.  Six  years  later,  while  Morris 
was  a  member  of  Governor  Hamilton's  Council,  Jeremiah 
Basse  arrived  in  the  province,  and  claimed  the  governor- 
ship, although  elected  by  an  insufficient  number  of  pro- 
prietaries. For  resisting  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  Basse, 
Morris  was  expelled  from  the  council.  With  the  over- 
banner,  p.  148  et  seq. 

'For  an  analysis  of  Cornbury's  instructions,  see  Tanner,  p.  150  et  seq. 
3 See  Morris  Papers ,   "Introductory    Memoir,"  and  "The  Morris 
Family  of  Morrisonia,"  Am.  Hist.  Magazine,  vol.  i,  p.  33. 


26  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [26 

throw  of  Basse,  and  the  return  of  Hamilton,  however,  he 
was  returned  to  the  council.  His  probity  and  uncom- 
promising conduct  won  him  the  hatred  of  Lord  Corn- 
bury,  the  first  royal  governor  of  New  Jersey.  Morris 
opposed  the  tyranny  of  Cornbury,  only  to  find  himself 
suspended  from  the  council  by  that  unworthy  official  in 
1704.  Queen  Anne  reinstated  him,  but  a  second  suspen- 
sion at  the  hands  of  Cornbury  almost  immediately  fol- 
lowed. Excluded  from  the  upper  house,  Morris  was 
elected  to  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature,  where 
his  influence  was  largely  instrumental  in  securing  the 
removal  of  the  corrupt  and  unscrupulous  governor.  He 
was  again  restored  to  his  seat  in  the  council  under  the 
next  executive.  Except  for  a  brief  period,  when  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Ingoldsby  attempted  to  drive  him  from 
the  council,  Morris  continued  in  the  upper  house  of  New 
Jersey  for  many  years. 

With  the  appointment  of  Hunter,  as  governor  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  the  scene  of  Morris's  activity  was 
transferred  to  the  former  province.  Hunter  and  his  suc- 
cessor Burnet  were  able  and  respected  executives,  whose 
administrations  Morris  supported  with  dignity  and  abil- 
ity. In  171 5,  he  was  appointed  chief  justice  of  New 
York  under  Governor  Hunter.  He  continued  to  support 
the  administrations,  until  the  arrival  of  the  arbitrary 
Cosby,  as  governor.  Cosby  and  Rip  Van  Dam,  the 
president  of  the  New  York  council,  became  involved  in 
a  quarrel  over  salary,  for  the  determination  of  which,  the 
governor  insisted  on  proceeding  before  the  equity  side 
of  the  Court  of  Exchequer.  Chief  Justice  Morris  refused 
to  be  a  partner  to  Cosby's  scheme,  and  opposed  the 
action  by  delivering  an  opinion  that  the  court  was  not 
regularly  created  and  hence  was  illegal.  Morris's  sus- 
pension resulted  from  this  bold  defiance  of  the  executive. 


2y]  THE  GOVERNOR  2J 

Thereupon  the  colony  was  divided  between  two  bit- 
terly hostile  factions.  Deprived  of  his  judicial  position, 
Morris,  now  a  popular  idol,  carried  his  case  on  appeal 
to  England,  while  his  son  was  sent  to  the  assembly,  where 
he  led  the  opposition  against  Cosby.  Before  the  crown 
officials,  the  ex-chief  justice  vindicated  himself,  and  was 
still  urging  the  necessity  of  Cosby's  removal,  when,  in 
1736,  that  worthy  died.  Morris  then  returned  to  Amer- 
ica, where,  in  New  York,  he  was  received  with  great 
acclaim.  Upon  his  return  to  New  Jersey,  he  laid  claim 
to  the  presidency  of  the  council,  by  virtue  of  the  royal 
instructions  to  the  late  governor,  in  which  Morris  was 
named  as  eldest  councillor.1  The  council  sustained 
Hamilton's  contention,  inasmuch  as  Morris  was  not  re- 
siding in  the  colony  when  Cosby  died,  nor  at  the  demise 
of  Anderson,  the  president  of  the  council  who  became 
acting  governor  at  Cosby's  death.  The  government  pro- 
perly devolved  upon  Hamilton,  whom  only  an  express 
order  of  the  king  could  divest  of  the  presidency.9 

Morris's  main  argument  was  that  he  had  received  cer- 
tain instructions  addressed  to  him  as  president  of  the 
council.  This  discrepancy  was  readily  accounted  for 
from  the  fact  that  the  home  authorities  had  had  notice 
of  Cosby's  death,  but  not  of  the  swearing  in  of  Anderson 
and  Hamilton.  The  official  documents  were  on  that  ac- 
count addressed  to  Morris,  whose  name  still  headed  the 
list,  because  of  a  lack  of  information  on  the  part  of  the 
home  authorities.3  Morris  made  some  lengthy  "  Obser- 
vations on  the  Reasons  given  by  Hamilton's  advisers," 
but  hardly  substantiated  his  position  against  the  clear 
reading  of  the  royal  instruction.4     President  Hamilton 

x  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  538.        *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  474. 
8 Ibid.,  p.  481.  *  Ibid.,  p.  491. 


28  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [28 

issued  a  proclamation  against  Morris,  which  at  least  led 
the  testy  councillor  to  desist  from  making  good  his  threat 
to  resort  to  force  in  support  of  his  claims.1  The  report 
of  the  lords  of  trade,  January,  1737,  was  against  Morris.2 
This  decision  was  based  chiefly  upon  his  violation  of  a 
royal  instruction,  which  forbade  a  councillor  absenting 
himself  from  the  province  for  one  year  without  the  per- 
mission of  the  governor.  His  conduct  was  declared 
improper  and  such  as  to  warrant  the  forfeiture  of  his 
seat  in  the  council. 

Morris  had  doubtless  made  many  influential  friends 
during  his  long  visit  to  England,  and  consequently,  not- 
withstanding the  unfavorable  report  of  the  lords  of  trade 
in  the  above  dispute,  received  the  appointment  as  gov- 
ernor of  New  Jersey.  It  was  a  position  which  he  had 
some  years  before  declared  himself  in  favor  of  having.3 
The  people  expressed  real  and  evident  satisfaction  at 
this  appointment,  for  during  the  recent  contests  with 
Cosby,  Morris  had  become  very  popular. 

But  the  administration  was  still  young,  when  the  people 
learned  by  experience  that  the  new  governor  assumed  a 
different  attitude  upon  public  questions  from  that  which 
he  had  previously  taken.  With  the  governorship  in  his 
own  hands,  no  one  was  more  insistent  upon  and  careful 
of  prerogative  than  he  was.  "Tandem  Vincitur"  the 
Morris  family  motto  is  said  to  have  read,  and  in  Lewis 
it  had  an  able  exponent.  With  a  strong  will  and  a  rest- 
less disposition,  power  having  come  into  his  hands,  he 
was  intolerant  of  the  views  of  others  when  in  opposition 
to  his  own,  and  insisted  upon  the  execution  of  his  own 
plans.      The  governor  became  involved    in  violent  and 

1 N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  469. 

iIbid.,  p.  479.  3 Ibid.,  p.  314. 


29 ]  THE  GOVERNOR  2g 

unseemly  quarrels  with  the  assembly,  sending  to  the 
legislature  long  messages,  well  calculated  to  induce  fruit- 
less wordy  warfare.  With  advancing  age  his  egotism  led 
him  to  believe  that  his  worth  was  not  appreciated,  and  his 
administration,  instead  of  being  a  popular  one,  was  a 
disappointment  to  the  people.  Although  his  adminis- 
tration was  a  struggle  with  unwilling  assemblies,  it  was 
a  beneficial  period  for  the  province.  This  man,  who  had 
waged  so  many  contests  against  unpopular  executives, 
himself  became  one  of  the  most  unpopular.  But  it  was 
neither  corruption  nor  questionable  political  deals  that 
caused  his  popularity  to  wane.  The  constant  quarrels 
with  the  lower  branch  of  the  legislature  were  in  large 
part  aggravated  by  the  eccentric  and  harsh  temperament 
of  the  governor. 

That  Morris  was  actuated  by  only  the  best  motives 
cannot  be  doubted.  In  the  exercise  of  his  powers  he 
adhered  scrupulously  to  what  he  regarded  as  his  duty  to 
the  king  and  compromised  with  none.  A  man  of  un- 
doubted ability,  had  he  infused  some  tact  into  the  exer- 
cise of  his  authority,  his  administration  would  have  been 
far  more  successful.  In  religion,  he  was  early  in  his 
career  a  strict  couformist,  but  later  his  conformity  waned. 
He  disliked  the  Quakers,  and  was  continually  making 
assertions  to  the  authorities  in  England  against  them, 
urging  that  none  should  be  allowed  to  hold  office.  He 
died  at  Kingsbury,  bis  estate  near  Trenton,  on  May  21, 
1746.  The  Morris  administration  was  so  unpopular  that 
in  the  succeeding  administration,  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  Morris  family  to  obtain  the  governor's  back  pay 
was  successfully  frustrated  by  the  assembly. 

The  commission  and  instructions  under  which  Morris 
governed  New  Jersey  followed  closely  those  of  the  former 


30  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [30 

executives.1  In  the  commission  there  were  only  the 
necessary  verbal  changes,  while  the  instructions  show  a 
few  minor  changes,  in  part  caused  by  the  institution  of  a 
separate  governor  for  the  province.  A  former  instruc- 
tion providing  that  all  goods  imported  or  exported  from 
New  Jersey  should  pay  as  high  duties  as  those  from 
New  York  was  withdrawn,  as  contrary  to  the  royal  in- 
structions to  other  governors.  The  instruction  relating 
to  the  affirmation  of  Quakers  was  omitted,  inasmuch  as 
that  was  provided  for  by  an  act  of  the  province.  Mor- 
ris's instructions  consisted  of  ninety-three  articles. 

After  the  death  of  Governor  Morris,  John  Hamilton, 
president  of  the  council,  took  the  oath,  June  4,  1746,  to 
act  as  governor  until  the  appointment  of  a  successor  to 
Morris.2  A  year  later  he  died,  and  no  governor  having 
as  yet  arrived  in  the  province,  John  Reading  as  eldest 
councillor  assumed  office,  assuring  the  crown  that  it  would 
be  administered  as  faithfully  as  possible.3  The  author- 
ities in  England  had  decided  on  the  new  governor  as 
early  as  July,  1746,  when  the  lords  of  trade  were  directed 
to  prepare  the  commission  and  instructions  for  Jonathan 
Belcher.4  For  some  reason  Belcher  had  neglected  the 
payment  of  certain  fees  in  connection  with  their  issuance, 
and  the  proceedings  were  delayed  for  almost  half  a  year.5 
Upon  payment  of  the  fees,  the  documents  were  signed 
and  approved  early  in  1747,  and  New  Jersey's  new  royal 
governor  set  sail  for  his  new  field  of  activity. 

lN.  J.  Archives,  vol.  vi,  p.  2.  l Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  452. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  462.  *Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  1. 

6 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  422.  Mr.  Paris,  the  agent  of  the  East  Jersey  pro- 
prietors in  England,  thought  that  the  fees  had  been  paid  with  money 
collected  by  Partridge  from  Quakers,  he  having  represented  to  them 
Belcher's  services  to  the  Quakers  in  Boston,  as  governor  of  Mass.,  and 
that  the  Quakers  might  reasonably  expect  his  favor  in  N.  J.     In  the 


3 1  ]  THE  GO  VERNOR  3 T 

From  the  brief  sketch  of  Governor  Morris's  life,  it  was 
seen  that  the  period  of  his  popularity  was  during  that 
part  of  his  public  career  previous  to  the  appointment  as 
governor  of  New  Jersey.  In  the  case  of  Governor 
Belcher  the  opposite  was  true.  His  conduct  as  governor 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  became  so  obnox- 
ious to  the  people,  that  no  steps,  proper  or  improper, 
were  omitted  to  secure  his  removal  from  his  position. 
With  Belcher,  as  was  also  the  case  with  Morris,  a  proper 
estimate  of  the  man  is  possible,  only  after  a  considera- 
tion of  his  work  in  New  England.1 

Born  in  Cambridge,  January  8,  1682,  the  son  of 
Andrew  Belcher,  a  wealthy  Massachusetts  merchant, 
Jonathan  was  educated  at  Harvard,  where  he  was  grad- 
uated in  1699.  Having  traveled  abroad  for  several  years 
after  the  completion  of  his  college  course,  he  returned 
to  New  England  to  become  his  father's  business  partner. 
In  1 718,  he  became  a  member  of  the  Massachusetts 
council,  at  which  board  he  served  for  seven  years.  His 
election  to  that  body  was  vetoed  by  Governor  Burnet  in 
1729.  Although  Belcher  had  formerly  had  the  reputa- 
tion of  being  a  prerogative  man,  he  managed  to  ingrati- 
ate himself  with  the  popular  party  at  about  this  time. 
When  the  contest  between  the  representatives  and  Bur- 
net over  the  question  of  a  permanent  salary  for  the  gov- 
ernor was  most  acute,  Belcher  was  sent  to  England  by 
the  lower  house  to  aid  the  regular  provincial  agent  in 
converting  the  royal  authorities  to  the  colonial  view- 
point. 

Belcher  Papers  under  date  of  Nov.  16,  1747,  there  is  a  letter  which 
Belcher  wrote  to  his  son  in  Boston,  urging  him  to  treat  with  kindness 
and  respect  "such  as  you  fall  in  with  from  my  Government  (the 
Quakers  especially)." 

'For  Belcher's  career,  see  "Preface"  to  Belcher  Papers,  published 
by  the  Mass.  Historical  Society,  series  vi,  vols,  vi  and  vii. 


32  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [32 

It  is  not  evident  that  Belcher's  influence  counted  for 
much  in  the  affair  on  account  of  which  he  was  sent 
abroad,  but  the  trip  resulted  to  his  own  personal  good 
fortune.  The  special  agent  of  the  Massachusetts  assem- 
bly had  not  been  long  in  England,  when  Governor  Bur- 
net died.  As  soon  as  the  news  of  that  gentleman's 
demise  had  crossed  the  ocean,  ex-councillor  Belcher 
turned  his  chief  attention  to  securing  the  appointment 
as  Burnet's  successor  in  America.  With  evident  ability 
in  that  direction,  he  successfully  pulled  the  official  wires, 
and  received  the  coveted  appointment.  It  is  said  that 
former  Governor  Shute  might  again  have  received  the 
appointment,  but  he  refused  the  honor,  and  surrendered 
his  interests  to  Belcher.1  Shute  was  Belcher's  debtor  to 
the  amount  of  £500,  as  the  result  of  a  fourteen-year-old 
transaction. 

The  flop,  which  the  newly  appointed  governor  of  Mas- 
sachusetts had  made  in  1729  from  the  prerogative  to  the 
popular  party,  was  characteristic  of  his  subsequent  con- 
duct in  New  England  politics.  As  with  Morris  later  in 
New  Jersey  history,  so  with  Belcher  in  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire,  his  popularity  was  of  short  duration 
after  he  became  the  royal  executive.  Having  returned 
to  the  colony  with  an  instruction  upon  the  question  of  a 
fixed  salary,  more  distasteful  to  the  New  Englanders 
than  Burnet's  had  been,  Belcher  determined  to  enforce 
it  with  as  much  exactness  as  his  predecessor  had  done. 
His  position  was  incongruous,  to  say  the  least.  He  was 
attempting  to  persuade  the  assembly  of  the  colony  of  the 
propriety  and  necessity  of  a  plan,  which  the  preceding 
year  he  had  been  appointed  and  sent  to  England  to 
oppose.     Upon  the  question  of   the  emission  of  paper 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Mass.  Bay  Colony,  p.  367. 


33  J  THE  GOVERNOR  33 

money,  Belcher  also  opposed  the  popular  party.  In 
Massachusetts,  the  governor  was  especially  arbitrary  in 
the  matter  of  appointments,  his  conduct  upon  occasions 
being  neither  consistent  nor  warrantable. 

Nor  was  the  governor's  conduct  unpopular  in  only  the 
more  powerful  of  the  two  colonies  under  his  jurisdiction. 
His  activities  were  resented  in  New  Hampshire,  where 
his  indiscretions  loomed  perhaps  larger  than  in  the 
neighboring  colony.  His  attitude  toward  New  Hamp- 
shire in  the  boundary  dispute  with  Massachusetts  was  a 
subject  of  complaint.  It  was  the  treatment  of  the  lieu- 
tenant governors  of  the  smaller  colony  that  aroused  the 
greatest  opposition  against  Belcher.  John  Wentworth, 
who  was  lieutenant  governor  when  Belcher  was  commis- 
sioned, soon  felt  the  enmity  of  his  superior.  After  the 
lieutenant  governor's  death,  the  most  active  opposition 
to  Belcher  in  New  Hampshire  came  from  a  party  of 
Wentworth's  adherents.  David  Dunbar,  the  next  lieu- 
tenant governor,  was  so  denuded  of  authority  by  Belcher 
that  he  became  a  mere  nonentity  in  the  government. 
The  governor  actually  convened  the  council  in  Dunbar's 
house,  without  so  much  as  noticing  the  latter.1 

The  complaints  against  Governor  Belcher,  because  of 
the  disputes  in  both  provinces,  were  naturally  carried 
across  the  ocean.  Every  opportunity  was  taken  to  ren- 
der his  position  precarious  with  the  home  officials,  in 
order  that  he  would  be  removed.  To  effect  this  pur- 
pose, his  opponents  did  not  content  themselves  with 
stating  only  the  facts,  but  sent  forged  and  anonymous 
letters  also  to  England.  He  was  removed  in  May,  1741, 
and  Shirley  was  appointed  to  succeed  him. 

After   retiring  for   a  while   to   his   estate  at   Milton, 

'Fry,  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province,  p.  93. 


34  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [34 

Belcher  went  to  England  and  succeeded  in  so  far  vindi- 
cating himself  before  the  royal  authorities  that  he  was 
appointed  to  succeed  Morris  in  New  Jersey.  This  ap- 
pointment was  doubtless  due  in  part  to  the  influence  of 
his  brother-in-law,  Richard  Partridge,  the  agent  of  New 
Jersey  at  court.  Upon  his  arrival  in  America,  as  gov- 
ernor of  New  Jersey,  he  made  Burlington  his  home,  but 
in  1752  removed  to  Elizabethtown  on  account  of  his 
health. 

The  usual  congratulatory  addresses  were  sent  to  the 
new  governor,  and  indications  pointed  to  a  harmonious 
administration.1  Throughout  his  term  of  office  in  New 
Jersey,  he  adopted  a  consistently  mild  and  conciliatory 
policy,  which  made  his  administration  deservedly  popu- 
lar. His  conduct  was  in  great  contrast  to  that  of  his 
predecessor  in  New  Jersey,  and  to  his  own  attitude  in 
his  former  executive  position.  He  would  resist  popular 
measures  only  when  they  brought  him  into  conflict 
with  positive  instructions  from  the  crown.  Belcher  be- 
lieved in  his  popularity  also,  for  he  writes  in  1750,  "  I 
believe  I  am  not  Vain  while  I  tell  you  were  the  Governor 
elective  I  believe  I  shou'd  have  19  votes  in  20  through- 
out the  Province."2 

It  was  Belcher's  misfortune,  however,  to  hold  office 
during  the  period  when  the  land  riots  of  the  people 
against  the  proprietors  became  most  violent.  His  evident 
desire  to  remain  neutral  in  the  quarrel  and  to  act  justly, 
led  to  representations  being  made  against  him  in  Eng- 
land by  some  of  the  proprietors,  who  charged  him  with 
countenancing  the  rioters.3     Robert  Hunter  Morris,  mis- 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  13. 
1  Belcher  Papers,  Nov.  7,  1750. 
3 Ibid.    The  letters  written  during  August,  1757. 


35]  THE  GOVERNOR  35 

interpreting  Belcher's  neutrality  in  the  land  disputes 
for  partiality,  exerted  his  powerful  influence  while  in 
London  to  secure  his  removal,  but  was  unsuccessful. 
The  governor  attributed  Morris's  conduct  in  part  to 
jealousy  that  "  his  late  Father's  administration  was  so 
imprudent  and  so  abhorrent  to  the  whole  people  and 
mine  should  be  so  much  the  reverse."  x  An  able  defense 
of  Belcher's  conduct  was  made  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Brunswick  at  their  meeting  in  December,  1751,  and  a 
letter  was  addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Holderness  declaring 
as  groundless  reports  against  him,  and  asserting  as  the 
"  current  sentiments  of  the  people "  that  Governor 
Belcher  had  done  all  in  his  power  to  suppress  the  lawless 
tumults.9  The  governor  compared  his  difficult  sitiuation 
to  steering  "  between  sylla  and  charibdis  that  is  to  please 
the  King's  Ministers  at  home  and  a  touchy  People  here 
or  as  we  say  at  Sea  to  Luff  for  one  and  to  bear  away  for 
another."3  The  fear  of  removal  was  naturally  distasteful 
to  Belcher,  and  he  wrote  frequently  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  defending  his  conduct,  and  urging  that  he  should 
not  be  censured  without  first  having  the  privilege  of 
answering  for  himself  the  charges  against  him.4  In  the 
conduct  of  public  affairs,  Belcher  was  passive  rather  than 
active.  He  may  justly  be  censured  for  not  having  had  a 
definite  constructive  policy  to  cope  with  the  difficult  con- 
ditions in  the  province.  His  attitude  was  not  assertive 
and  he  clearly  lacked  those  qualities  which  make  for 
leadership.  The  governor's  interests  were,  in  the  main, 
those  of  the  colonists,  and  he  frequently  urged  the  en- 
couragement  of  trade,  agriculture   and   manufacturing. 

1  Belcher  Papers ,  Aug.  16,  1751. 

"Hageman,  Princeton  and  Its  Institutions. 

*  Belcher  Papers ,  June  8,  1751.  KN.  J.  Archives,  vol.  vii,  p.  571. 


36  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [36 

A  great  degree  of  inconsistency  cannot  be  charged 
against  Governor  Belcher  in  New  Jersey  affairs. 

His  was  a  most  interesting  personality.  It  is  revealed 
in  the  voluminous  correspondence  of  this  tireless  letter- 
writer.  Belcher's  actions  frequently  fell  far  short  of  his 
professions.  This  was  especially  true  of  his  career  in 
New  England,  where  he  was  not  above  duplicity.  His 
extreme  obeisance  to  his  official  superiors  is  hard  to 
reconcile  with  the  often  unkind  arbitrariness  to  those 
over  whom  he  was  officially  superior.  The  governor 
was  a  very  emotional  man.  The  fervent  religious  spirit 
of  Belcher's  letters  may  sound  like  cant  and  osten- 
tatious piety,  but  in  judging  him  the  character  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived  should  be  considered.  None  of 
the  New  Jersey  governors  of  this  period  did  more  to 
encourage  and  promote  the  religious  and  educational 
life  of  the  province  than  did  he.  The  founding  of  the 
College  of  New  Jersey,  now  Princeton  University,  was 
due  in  no  small  degree  to  the  earnest  and  patient  efforts 
of  Jonathan  Belcher. 

Although  Belcher  was  satisfied  with  the  life  in  New 
Jersey,  once  writing,  "  If  God  and  the  King  please  I 
shou'd  be  glad  to  dye  Gov  of  New  Jersey,"  he  longed  to 
return  at  least  for  a  visit  to  his  relatives,  in  New  Eng- 
land.1 In  1747  he  had  applied  to  the  crown  officials  for 
a  general  leave  of  absence  which  would  enable  him  to  go 
to  New  England  for  two  or  three  months  when  neces- 
sary. This  general  leave  was  not  granted,  but  he  was 
ordered  to  apply  for  a  special  license  whenever  it  was 
necessary  for  him  to  go  to  New  England.3     A  leave  of 

1  Belcher  Papers,  June  8,  1751.  We  find  in  one  of  his  letters  the  as- 
sertion that  his  tongue  would  cleave  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth  when  he 
forgot  New  England. 

*N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  449,  453. 


37]  THE  GOVERNOR  37 

absence  was  obtained  early  in  1750,  but  owing  to  the 
state  of  affairs  in  the  province  it  remained  unused.1 

In  his  later  years  Belcher  was  in  declining  health. 
Benjamin  Franklin  offered  to  aid  him  by  electrical  treat- 
ments, and  after  having  consulted  noted  physicians  in 
the  colonies,  the  offer  was  accepted  by  the  prospective 
patient,  convinced  that  the  experiment  could  be  made 
"in  moderation,  without  any  fear  of  Injury."2  The 
honored  governor  died  in  1757,  his  death  causing  genu- 
ine grief  on  the  part  of  the  people.  We  are  told  that 
the  funeral  service  in  the  Presbyterian  church  at  Eliza- 
bethtown,  at  which  President  Burr  of  the  College  of 
New  Jersey  preached  the  sermon,  was  very  impressive. 
The  sermon  was  later  published  with  the  title  "  A  Ser- 
vant of  God  dismissed  from  Labor  to  Rest.,, 

The  commission  which  Governor  Belcher  brought  with 
him  to  America  was  in  the  usual  form,  and  the  modifica- 
tions in  the  instructions  were  few.3  An  additional  in- 
struction tq  Morris  directing  him  to  send  aid  to  Nova 
Scotia  was  inserted  in  the  present  set,  but  owing  to  the 
war  with  France  an  instruction  was  now  omitted  relating 
to  the  treaty  of  neutrality  between  England  and  France  in 
1686.  The  titles  of  three  acts  of  the  15th,  17th  and  19th 
years  of  George  II  relating  to  the  Acts  of  Trade  and 
Navigation  were  in  Belcher's  instructions. 

Upon  the  death  of  Governor  Belcher  an  interesting 
situation  arose  in  connection  with  the  administration  of 
the  government.  In  1755  Thomas  Pownall  had  been 
appointed  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Jersey,  upon  the 
expectation  that   he   would   soon   become  governor  by 

1  Belcher  Papers ,  Jan.  8,  1750. 

1  Belcher  Papers ,  Oct.  and  Nov.,  1751. 

*  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  vii,  p.  2  et  seq. 


38  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [38 

Belcher's  death.1  The  New  Jersey  governor  not  dying 
as  soon  as  had  been  anticipated,  Pownall  was  appointed 
to  succeed  Shirley  of  Massachusetts.  In  September,  1757, 
he  was  duly  notified  by  Secretary  Read  of  New  Jersey  of 
the  governor's  death.2 

As  Pownall  was  absent  from  New  Jersey,  the  adminis- 
tration fell  to  Reading,  the  oldest  councillor,  who  refused 
to  assume  the  chief  authority,  as  he  was  aged  and  infirm 
and  "not  fit  to  bear  the  Weight  or  Burthen  of  Govern- 
ment." 3  At  the  earnest  behest  of  the  council  and  secre- 
tary, Reading  did  qualify  by  taking  the  oaths  in  order  to 
prevent  confusion  in  the  colony,  but  urged  that  he  be 
superseded  or  relieved  by  the  appointment  of  some  other 
person.  Pownall  came  to  New  Jersey,  but  inasmuch  as 
there  was  no  unusual  business  requiring  his  attention, 
returned  to  Massachusetts,  after  having  met  the  council 
and  continued  Reading  in  charge.  He  generously  prom- 
ised to  make  the  trip  from  Boston  at  any  time  that  neces- 
sity required  "more  vigorous  exertion"  than  Reading's 
state  of  health  would  allow.4  To  the  lords  of  trade 
Pownall  urged  the  immediate  appointment  of  some  per- 
son as  governor  of  New  Jersey,  "  with  no  connections 
with  this  country,"  especially  because  if  Reading  should 
die  the  administration  would  devolve  upon  Robert  H. 
Morris,  one  of  the  chief  proprietors,  an  event  which  he 
quite  reasonably  regarded  would  be  most  improper,  at  a 
time  when  the  proprietors  and  people  were  at  odds. 

There  now  followed  in  rapid  succession  three  royal 
governors,  with  administrations  so  brief  as  scarce  to  leave 
any  distinct  impression  on  the  colony.     In  June,  1758, 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  102. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  257.  s  Ibid.,  p.  260. 

4 Ibid.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  133. 


39]  THE  GOVERNOR  39 

Francis'Bernard  took  the  oaths  as  governor  of  New  Jer- 
sey.1 A  cultivated  gentleman,  having  been  educated  at 
Oxford,  Bernard  was  enthusiastically  received  in  the 
province.  But  in  November,  1759,  he  was  appointed 
governor  of  Massachusetts  Bay  leaving  New  Jersey  the 
next  year,  to  the  great  regret  of  the  assembly  which 
esteemed  his  going  "as  a  public  loss."2  The  departure 
was  in  marked  contrast  to  his  leave-taking  at  Boston, 
in  August,  1769. 

In  less  than  a  month  after  the  notification  to  Bernard 
of  his  new  appointment,  the  representation  of  the  lords 
of  trade  proposing  Thomas  Boone,  a  citizen  of  South 
Carolina,  as  governor  of  New  Jersey  was  approved.3 
The  honor  thus  conferred  upon  him  was  acknowledged 
by  a  letter  from  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  to  the 
lords  of  trade  and  another  letter  to  those  honorable 
gentlemen  notified  them  of  his  arrival  in  New  Jersey, 
and  the  publication  of  his  commission  at  Perth  Amboy 
and  Burlington.4  Before  he  had  been  in  New  Jersey  a 
year,  Boone  was,  in  April,  1761,  appointed  governor  of 
South  Carolina. 

Josiah  Hardy,  who  had  not  had  any  previous  connec- 
tion with  the  colonies,  was  the  next  person  tried  in  New 
Jersey  by  the  crown  authorities.  He  arrived  late  in 
October,  1761,  and  after  publishing  his  commission,  met 
the  legislature.5  Conduct  on  the  part  of  the  governor, 
which  the  authorities  regarded  as  illegal  and  unwar- 
ranted, cut  short  the  administration  of  Hardy.  He  had 
granted  commissions  to  the  justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  province  to  hold  office  during  good  be- 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  xvii,  p.  173. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  188.  *  Ibid.,  p.  189. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  205,  234.  5  Ibid.,  p.  316. 


40  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [4o 

havior.  The  lords  of  trade  spoke  very  sternly  against 
"  so  premeditated  and  unprecedented  an  Act  of  disobe- 
dience "  on  the  governor's  part,1  and  the  attorney  general 
reported  that  the  appointments  during  good  behavior 
were  contrary  to  the  royal  instructions,  illegal  and  invalid.3 
Hardy  was  notified  of  his  removal,  and  replying  in  a 
brief  and  dignified  note,  acknowledged  the  letter  of  re- 
moval from  Egremont,  but  mentioned  his  ignorance  as 
to  the  representations  against  him,  and  his  never  having 
been  given  an  opportunity  to  justify  his  conduct.3 

The  removal  of  Hardy  was  another  disappointment  to 
the  people  of  New  Jersey;  not  only  because  they  were 
inclined  to  the  governor  personally,  but  because  the 
frequent  changes  in  administration  were  felt  to  be  inju- 
rious to  the  colony.  The  purse-strings  were  affected 
also,  because  it  was  customary  to  grant  an  extra  £500 
to  each  governor  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  administra- 
tion, as  an  aid  to  the  payment  of  his  transportation 
expenses.  The  assembly  was  beginning  to  count  up 
these  extra  requisitions  of  the  past  few  years,  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  next  governor  did  not  receive  one. 

The  commissions  granted  to  Bernard,  Boone,  and 
Hardy  were  in  the  usual  form,  indeed  there  would  have 
been  scant  time  to  draft  new  ones,  had  there  been  any 
inclination,  considering  the  slowness  with  which  the 
machinery  of  government  worked  at  that  time  in  colonial 
affairs.  In  Bernard's  instructions,  one  suspending  the 
execution  of  laws  emitting  bills  of  credit  until  the  royal 
pleasure  was  known  was  omitted,  and  for  it  substituted 
an  instruction  allowing  the  governor  to  assent  to  such 
acts  in  times  of  war  or  cases  of  emergency,  under  condi- 

1 N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  ix,  Ibid.,  p.  360. 

3  Ibid. ,  p.  380.  8  Ibid. ,  p.  379- 


4I]  THE  GOVERNOR  4I 

tions  prescribed  by  the  act  of  parliament  of  1750.1  Arti- 
cles which  seemed  obsolete  were  omitted,  and  others 
similar  to  those  given  to  other  royal  governors  inserted. 
The  instructions  to  Boone  were  granted  with  only  neces- 
sary verbal  alterations.  An  important  addition  was 
made  to  the  27th  article  of  Boone's  instructions,  when 
Governor  Hardy's  were  issued.2  It  directed  the  gover- 
nor to  discourage  attempts  to  set  up  manufactures  or 
trades  prejudicial  to  England.  Some  instructions  had 
become  useless  because  their  objects  were  now  provided 
for  by  provincial  laws.  Such  were  omitted.  One  of 
these  was  to  secure  the  life,  limb  and  property  of  the 
subject ;  another  directed  proofs  to  be  sent  with  prisoners 
to  England;  and  a  third  provided  that  inhuman  severities 
towards  servants  and  slaves  should  be  restrained. 

When  William  Franklin  was  appointed  governor  of 
New  Jersey,  there  were  in  some  quarters  pronounced 
expressions  made  against  him,  one  gentleman  going  so 
far  as  not  to  doubt  but  that  New  Jersey  would  make  a 
remonstrance  against  the  appointment.3  The  ability 
which  Franklin  showed  in  governing  New  Jersey  during 
a  most  trying  period  leaves  one  to  conclude  that  the 
gross  aspersions  against  him  were  due  not  to  a  lack  of 
confidence  in  his  abilities  but  on  account  of  a  feeling 
hostile  to  him  because  of  his  illegitimate  birth.  Born  in 
1 73 1,  the  son  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  William  had  the 
opportunity  of  improving  himself  in  the  companionship 
of  his  learned  parent,  an  advantage  also  which  he  did  not 
neglect.4  When  his  father  went  to  England  as  Penn- 
sylvania's colonial  agent,  the  younger  Franklin  accom- 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  ix,  p.  38.  *  Ibid.,  p.  272. 

8  Duer,  Life  of  Lord  Stirling,  pp.  68-71. 

4  See  the  excellent  biographical  sketch  of  William  Franklin  by  W 
A.  Whitehead,  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  series  i,  vol.  iii,  p.  137. 


42  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [42 

panied  him.  While  in  Europe  he  traveled  extensively 
with  his  father  and  must  have  come  in  contact  with 
many  of  the  leading  personages  of  the  time.  In  1762 
he  was  given  an  honorary  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at 
Oxford.  Through  the  influence  of  Lord  Bute,  William 
Franklin  was  appointed  in  August,  1762,  to  succeed 
Hardy  as  governor  of  New  Jersey,  and^  was  the  last 
royal  governor  of  that  province.  Arrived  in  the  colony 
in  February  of  the  next  year,  he  was  greeted  with  a 
demonstration  "equal  to  his  utmost  wishes/'1 

Governor  Franklin's  endeavors  for  the  prosperity  and 
welfare  of  the  province  were  earnest  and  unremitting. 
Arriving  in  America  at  the  conclusion  of  a  long  and 
expensive  war,  he  urged  upon  Jerseymen  the  cultivation 
and  promotion  of  the  arts  of  peace.  He  himself  became 
an  active  agriculturist,  caring  for  a  farm  of  considerable 
extent  at  Burlington,  where  he  lived  until  1774.  At  that 
date  he  moved  to  Perth  Amboy,  in  order  to  call  the 
council  more  freely  during  that  critical  period.2  Numer- 
ous measures  of  economic  and  social  value  to  the  colony 
secured  his  active  support  and  encouragement. 

Had  Franklin  been  governor  of  New  Jersey  a  decade 
earlier,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  his  administra- 
tion would  have  been  far  more  successful  than  it  was. 
It  was  upon  that  momentous  question,  dearest  to  the 
hearts  of  the  patriots,  that  Franklin  was  a  stranger  to 
his  people.  He  stood  firmly  in  favor  of  the  acts  of  the 
English  ministry.  His  noted  father  aptly  described  him 
as  "a  thorough  government  man."3  It  was  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  governor  to  the  people  on  this  vital  subject 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  ix,  p.  383.  2 Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  459. 

J  Letter  of  Oct.  6,  1773,  to  Wm.  Franklin.     Smyth,  Life  and   Writ- 
ings of  Benjamin  Franklin,  vol.  vi,  p.  144. 


43]  THE  GOVERNOR  43 

which  brought  him  into  conflict  with  them  on  other 
matters,  in  which  under  ordinary  circumstances  they 
would  have  supported  him.  But  determined  upon  his 
course  in  favor  of  the  royal  officials  in  their  contest  with 
the  colonies,  Franklin  saw  it  through  to  the  bitter  end, 
enduring  separation  from  his  wife  and  estrangement 
from  his  father.  It  is  a  tribute  to  his  ability,  that  hold- 
ing such  pronounced  royalist  views,  Franklin  maintained 
himself  as  long  as  he  did  as  governor  of  the  province. 
The  detailed  account  of  Franklin's  conduct  during  the 
Revolution  will  be  reserved  for  a  later  chapter. 

Attention  may  here  be  called  to  the  minor  executive 
officers  in  the  colony.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the 
appointment  of  Thomas  Pownall  in  1755  as  lieutenant 
governor.  His  was  the  second  and  last  royal  commis- 
sion to  such  an  office  in  the  province.  The  only  other 
lieutenant  governor  had  been  Richard  Ingoldsby,  com- 
missioned as  such  at  the  institution  of  royal  government 
in  New  Jersey.  The  office  seemed  to  have  proven  itself 
a  useless  expense  and  was  abolished  until  the  appoint- 
ment of  Pownall.  The  apparent  motive  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  Pownall  was  to  have  a  competent  person  "  upon 
the  Spot"  to  succeed  Belcher  at  his  death,1  but  this  great 
anxiety  to  insure  the  smooth  succession  of  governors  in 
New  Jersey  does  not  appear  to  have  troubled  the  lords 
of  trade  after  Ingoldsby's  time.  Perhaps  Pownall  wanted 
a  colonial  office  and  it  was  awarded  to  him  through  the 
influence  of  his  brother,  then  secretary  of  the  lords  of 
trade. 

Belcher,  though  congratulating  Pownall  upon  his  ap- 
pointment, advised  Partridge,  the  London  agent,  to  be 
watchful  "  in  a  silent  manner  "  that  the  new  officer  should 

x  N.  J.  Archives,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  102. 


44  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [44 

not  attempt  anything  prejudicial  to  him.1  His  suspicions 
that  Pownall  would  not  scruple  anything  for  his  own 
advancement,  he  declares  to  be  not  without  reason.' 
What  his  apprehensions  were  does  not  appear.  In  view 
of  the  fact  that  a  lieutenant  governor  had  not  been  com- 
missioned for  New  Jersey  for  over  half  a  century,  and 
that  representations  had  been  made  against  the  governor, 
it  does  not  seem  unnatural  that  Belcher  should  have  been 
apprehensive. 

Pownall's  commission  had  given  him  authority  to  act 
as  governor  in  case  of  the  latter's  death  or  absence.3  In 
May,  1756,  Belcher  was  directed  to  authorize  the  lieuten- 
ant governor  to  act  in  his  stead,  whenever  his  age  and 
infirmity  made  it  "  painfull  and  hazardous  if  not  imprac- 
ticable" for  him  to  attend  any  meetings  of  the  govern- 
ors which  the  Earl  of  Loudoun,  commander  of  the  royal 
troops  in  America,  might  appoint.4  Pownall's  subse- 
quent connection  with  New  Jersey  affairs  has  been  men- 
tioned, and  after  him  no  other  lieutenant  governor  was 
appointed.  Thereafter  the  administration  of  affairs  dur- 
ing the  intervals  between  governorships  was  intrusted, 
according  to  the  royal  instructions,  to  the  oldest  coun- 
cilor, who  as  president  of  the  council  thus  came  to  have 
a  definite  and  distinct  position  in  fact,  as  well  as  in  name.5 

The  provincial  secretary  and  attorney  general  held 
office  by  royal  patent.  It  was  common  practice  for  the 
royal  appointee  to  farm  the  office  of  secretary  out  to  a 
deputy,  who  in  turn  might  entrust  the  actual  conduct  of 
affairs  to  clerks.     This  method  was  not  conducive  to  the 

lN.  J.  Archives,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  pp.  135,  130-  a Ibid.,  p.  190. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  106.  4 Ibid.,  p.  215. 

6  Before  the  issuance  of  Pownall's  commission  such  had  been  the 
practise  after  Ingoldsby's  time. 


45]  THE  GOVERNOR  45 

attainment  of  the  best  results.  In  1769  Governor  Frank- 
lin wrote  that  the  secretary  came  to  Burlington  only 
during  the  sessions  of  the  court,  but  that  he  desired  the 
next  appointee  to  reside  in  the  capital  city.1  The  gov- 
ernor referred  to  Joseph  Reed,  deputy  at  that  time,  who 
shortly  thereafter  did  resign,  and  was  succeeded  by  a 
person  concerning  whom  there  was  less  cause  for  adverse 
criticism. 

The  secretary's  commission  was  held  by  an  English 
gentleman  named  Burnet  in  1739,  Archibald  Home  act- 
ing as  deputy  in  the  province.3  William  Peters  of 
Pennsylvania  sought  the  commission  as  secretary  in 
1741,  but  the  best  efforts  of  John  Ferdinand  Paris  in  his 
behalf  were  of  no  avail.3  After  the  death  of  Burnet, 
Home  continued  to  hold  the  deputyship  until  his  own 
demise.  In  order  that  the  public  business  should  not 
be  inconvienced,  James  Home  was  appointed  deputy- 
secretary  on  the  decease  of  his  brother  Archibald.4  The 
date  of  his  commission  was  March  13,  1744.  Then 
Christopher  Coates,  became  secretary  of  the  province. 

In  1745  Charles  Read  received  a  commission  to  hold 
the  deputyship  during  the  royal  pleasure.5  It  is  recited 
that  James  Home  intends  to  remove  to  another  colony, 
doubtless  South  Carolina.  The  new  deputy  secretary 
took  the  oaths  to  the  government  and  for  the  due  execu- 
tion of  the  offices  of  secretary  and  clerk  of  council  on 
November  10,  1744.  For  the  next  two  or  three  decades 
Read  held  other  prominent  official  positions.     His  signa- 

1 N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.t  vol.  i,  p.  109. 

*  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xii,  p.  154. 

*  N.  J.  MSS.,  pp.  101,  107,  in  the  Pennsylvania  Hist.  Soc.  Library. 

*  Liber  A  A  A  of  Provincial  Commissions,  p.  254. 
'Ibid.,  p.  258. 


46  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [46 

ture  was  affixed  to  documents  until  1767.  Inasmuch  as 
he  was  re-commissioned  secretary  in  1762,1  Read's  in- 
cumbency in  the  office  doubtless  was  not  continuous 
from  1745  to  1762.  Under  date  of  March  17,  1761,  an 
order  of  council  directed  the  lords  of  trade  to  prepare 
a  warrant  continuing  Christopher  Coates  in  the  office  of 
secretary.2 

Maurice  Morgan,  "of  Parliament  Street,  Westminis- 
ter," was  granted  the  commission  of  secretary  of  New 
Jersey  on  June  18,  1 767.3  As  his  agent  in  the  province 
he  deputed  Joseph  Reed  later  in  the  same  month.  In 
January  of  the  following  year  Morgan  was  confirmed  in 
his  position  by  a  commission  which  appointed  him  to 
the  "Offices  or  Places  of  Secretary,  Clerk  of  the  Council, 
Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Clerk  of  the  Pleas,  Surro- 
gate and  Keeper  and  Register  of  Records."4  Morgan 
apparently  retained  his  commission  to  the  end  of  the 
provincial  era.  In  October,  1769,  Deputy  Secretary 
Reed  retired  in  favor  of  Charles  Pettit,  his  brother-in- 
law,  who  had  been  associated  with  Reed  in  the  duties  of 
his  numerous  offices.5  The  new  deputy  took  the  oaths 
before  Chief  Justice  Smyth  on  November  3,  1769,  the 
day  upon  which  he  was  licensed  as  an  attorney-at-law.6 
Continued  in  office  by  the  council  and  assembly  of  the 
State  of  New  Jersey  in  1776,  he  resigned  two  years  later 
in  favor  of  his  brother-in-law,  Bowes  Read.7 

Provincial  New  Jersey  boasted  of  two  receivers-gen- 
eral or  treasurers  appointed  by  the  governor  for  unlimited 

1  Liber  A  A  A  of  Provincial  Commissions,  p.  366. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  357;  vol.  x,  p.  366. 

3  Liber  A  B  of  Provincial  Commissions \  p.  4.  K  Ibid.,  p.  1. 

6 Ibid.,  p.  37;  Nt  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  133.  6 Ibid.,  p.  40. 

''Ibid.,  p.  186. 


47]  THE  GOVERNOR  47 

terms.  There  was  a  treasurer  for  each  division  of  the 
province  with  a  salary  of  £40  per  annum.  As  will  be 
seen,  the  assembly  of  New  Jersey  practically  gained  the 
power  of  dictating  the  appointments  to  this  office.  The 
East  Jersey  treasurer  in  1738  was  Andrew  Johnston. 
Upon  his  death,  in  1762,  Stephen  Skinner  received  the 
appointment  at  the  hands  of  Governor  Hardy.1  After  the 
robbery  of  the  treasury  chest  in  his  house,  Skinner's  res- 
ignation was  forced  by  the  assembly  in  1773,  and  John 
Smyth  appointed.  Stirred  by  the  treasury  theft,  the  as- 
sembly passed  an  act  obliging  the  treasurers  to  enter 
into  bonds  for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  office.  Smyth 
was  the  first  treasurer  appointed  during  the  operation  of 
this  law.  In  West  Jersey  John  Allen,  who  had  been 
appointed  by  Governor  Burnet,  retained  the  office  until 
1750.  For  the  twenty-five  years  following,  Samuel 
Smith,  the  historian,  acted  in  a  like  capacity.  Upon  his 
resignation  in  1775,  Franklin  appointed  Joseph  Smith  to 
the  office,  and  on  May  20th  of  that  year  the  assembly 
pronounced  his  bond  satisfactory. 

Many  of  the  other  officers  received  commissions  from 
the  governor.  These  included  the  provincial  and  county 
judges  and  justices  of  the  peace,  sheriffs  and  militia  offi- 
cers. Customs  officers  for  New  Jersey  were  usually 
commissioned  by  the  surveyor  general  of  customs  for 
the  colonies.  The  proprietary  surveyors  general  will  be 
mentioned  in  a  later  chapter. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  366. 


CHAPTEP  II 

The  Council — Position  and  Personnel 

The  council  acted  in  a  dual  capacity,  as  an  advisory 
body  to  the  governor,  and  as  the  upper  house  of  the 
legislature.1  In  the  former  capacity  it  had  many  import- 
ant functions,  among  them  the  necessity  of  giving  advice 
in  and  consent  to  the  establishment  of  courts,  the  erec- 
tion of  forts,  expenditures  of  the  public  money  and  other 
important  matters.  The  council  had  a  general  supervi- 
sion over  the  administration.  In  legislation  it  was  the 
theory  that  the  council  and  assembly  stood  on  an  equality, 
but  in  practice  this  was  not  the  case.  With  success,  the 
assembly  stubbornly  maintained  the  principle  that  the 
council  could  neither  originate  nor  amend  money  bills. 
This  position  was  deprecated  by  governors  and  home 
authorities,  but  the  assembly  would  not  abate  one  jot. 
This  naturally  gave  rise  to  serious  legislative  conflicts, 
which  were,  however,  not  unique  in  the  history  of  any 
one  English  colony.  The  council  also  had  judicial  duties 
in  cases  of  appeal  to  the  governor  and  council  from  the 
provincial  courts. 

The  governors  before  Morris  had  presided  at  the  leg- 
islative, as  well  as  the  administrative,  sessions  of  the 
council.  The  serious  objection  to  this  practice  was  that 
it  gave  the  executive  undue  influence  in  legislation.  It 
was  one  of  the  complaints  which  Morris  had  made 
against  Governor  Cosby,2  and  when  the  former  became 

banner,  op.  tit.,  ch.  xvii,  and  ch.  xviii. 
' N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  77.  s Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  19. 

48  [48 


49]  THE  COUNCIL  49 

governor  he  consistently  desisted  from  presiding  over 
the  legislative  deliberations  of  the  upper  house,  an  action 
which  deservedly  merited  the  approval  that  it  received 
from  the  legislature.  The  assembly  was  conscious  of 
the  advantage  of  having  the  council  sit  "  as  a  separate 
and  distinct  part  of  the  legislature;  for  all  former  gover- 
nors have  presided  in  that  House,  in  a  legislative  capacity, 
which  not  only  very  much  influenced  their  debates,  but 
often  produced  very  bad  effects,  and  greatly  thwarted 
and  obstructed  the  despatch  of  public  business."1  That 
Morris  believed  in  their  right  to  act  in  a  legislative 
capacity  apart  from  the  governor,  the  council  had  no 
reason  to  doubt,  and  reminding  him  "  of  the  ill  conse- 
quences which  have  ever  attended  and  again  may  attend 
a  Governor's  presiding,  and  voting  amongst  us  in  a 
Legislative  Capacity,"  expressed  their  gratitude  for  the 
action  he  had  taken.9  This  action  of  Morris's  was  most 
commendable,  decreased  his  power  not  in  the  least,  while 
it  did  encourage  legislative  harmony. 

Gov.  Belcher,  however,  deemed  it  to  be  "for  the  good 
of  the  Province,  that  he  should  be  present  when  any  Bill 
was  Debating  in  Council," 3  and  coming  to  the  council 
on  New  Year's  Day,  1746,  informed  his  councillors  that 
he  wished  merely  to  listen  to  the  debates  in  order  better 
to  judge  of  the  necessity  of  any  measure,  would  continue 
to  attend  for  that  purpose,  but  "  did  not  intend  to  vote 
or  otherwise  to  Intermeddle  with  or  Direct  any  of  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Council  in  their  Legislative  Capac- 
ity." The  next  day  Morris  moved  that  a  committee 
might  be  appointed  to  consider  the  governor's  claim, 
because  compliance  would  affect  the  rights  of  the  upper 
house.     What  the  committee  report  was  is  not  known, 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  28,  1738. 

1  AT.  J.  A.y  vol.  xv,  p.  19.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  567. 


50  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [50 

but  there  is  no  indication  that  the  governor  persisted  in 
his  purpose,  doubtless  concluding  that  the  king's  service 
would  not  be  best  conserved  by  stirring  up  needless 
opposition  in  the  council.  There  is,  however,  a  letter 
from  James  Alexander  to  Joseph  Murray,  an  eminent 
lawyer  and  member  of  the  New  York  council,  asking 
him  for  information  as  to  the  motives  that  "  induced  Mr. 
Clark  to  Desist  from  Setting  with  the  Council  in  their 
Legislative  Capacity,"  and  submitting  certain  queries 
upon  the  subject  to  which  answers  are  requested.1  It 
was  the  intention  also  to  send  a  copy  of  these  queries  to 
each  of  the  royal  governments  asking  for  the  desired 
information.2 

A  relic  of  the  former  recognized  division  of  the  terri- 
tory into  East  and  West  Jersey  remained  in  the  make-up 
of  the  council  also.  There  were  six  councillors  for  each 
division,  an  arrangement  frequently  provocative  of  an- 
noyance and  a  source  of  difficulty  in  making  appoint- 
ments. In  accordance  with  a  royal  instruction  to  the 
governors,  a  list  of  twelve  persons  qualified  to  act  as 
councillors,  six  from  each  division  of  the  province,  was 
to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  authorities  in  England.  Ac- 
cording to  the  instructions  to  both  Morris  and  Belcher  r 
the  royal  Surveyor  General  of  Customs  was  to  "  sit  and 
vote  in  the  Council  as  a  Councillor  Extraordinary."3  It 
was  usually  difficult  to  obtain  a  quorum,  which  was  three 
members.4  At  such  times,  much  to  the  detriment  of  the 
public  service,  as  well  as  the  annoyance  of  the  faithful 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  77.  i/did.,  p.  70. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  15. 

4  Morris's  commission  said  that  three  should  be  a  quorum,  but  in  the 
instructions  he  was  directed  not  to  act  with  a  quorum  of  less  than  five, 
"unless  upon  Extraordinary  Emergencies,  when  a  greater  Number 
cannot  be  conveniently  had." 


5i]  THE  COUNCIL  51 

members,  adjournment  would  be  made  from  day  to  day, 
until  the  requisite  number  appeared.  In  some  cases 
there  were  proper  excuses  for  absence  but  frequently  it 
was  neglect.  At  the  beginning  of  Morris's  administra- 
tion the  annoyance  was  such  that  the  council  asked  the 
governor  to  lay  before  them  the  royal  instructions  in  the 
matter,  and  ordered  the  absent  members  to  attend.1  In 
November,  1739,  after  certain  members  had  been  sum- 
moned thrice,  they  were  warned  that  all  excuses  were 
futile,  and  that  persisting  to  be  neglectful,  their  cases 
would  be  laid  before  the  king.*  A  recommendation  of 
Governor  Morris  that  stated  council  meetings  should  be 
held  quarterly  on  the  last  Tuesday  of  March,  June,  Sep- 
tember and  December  at  the  governor's  residence,  was 
agreed  to  by  the  council,  December  4,  1739.3  The  object 
was  to  obviate  the  difficulty  of  members  attending  meet- 
ings upon  short  notice,  the  agreement  being  regarded 
as  a  summons  to  meet  on  the  days  indicated.  Extra 
sessions  were,  of  course,  to  be  held  in  the  discretion  of 
the  governor.  This  simple  arrangement  overcame  in 
great  part  the  difficulties  which  it  had  been  sought  to 
remedy.  The  attendance  of  councillors,  however,  was 
even  later,  in  1744,  a  matter  of  caustic  comment  on  the 
part  of  the  assembly.4 

The  personnel  of  the  council  was  in  general  high,  its 
membership  including  many  of  the  most  able  and  in- 
fluential men  in  the  province.  In  no  small  degree  was 
the  governor  responsible  for  the  character  of  his  coun- 
cil, for  his  recommendations  of  persons  qualified  to  act 
as  councillors  were  almost  without  exception  accepted.5 

'AT.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  25.  *  Ibid.,  p.  94. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  104.  *  Ibid.,  p.  369. 

4  The  majority  of  Belcher's  recommendations,  however,  were  re- 
jected. 


52  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [52 

The  governor  also  had  the  power  to  suspend  councillors, 
but  in  cases  of  suspension  was  to  transmit  a  detailed 
account  to  the  king.  Although  from  these  circum- 
stances it  might  appear  that  the  royal  executive  exer- 
cised considerable  influence  over  the  council,  as  was  in- 
deed the  case,  they  were  by  no  means  servile  to  him.  In 
upholding  the  royal  prerogative  against  popular  en- 
croachments, their  interests  were  common,  but  when 
those  interests  diverged,  governor  and  council  frequently 
came  into  conflict. 

Exclusive  of  John  Peagrum,  Surveyor  General  of  Cus- 
toms and  Councillor  Extraordinary,  the  following  were 
appointed  to  the  council  by  Morris's  instructions:  John 
Hamilton,  John  Wills,  John  Reading,  Cornelius  Van 
Horn,  William  Provost,  John  Schuyler,  Thomas  Farmer, 
John  Rodman,  Richard  Smith,  Robert  Lettice  Hooper, 
Robert  Hunter  Morris,  and  Jeremiah  Lyell,  the  first  five 
of  whom  had  been  councillors  under  the  old  adminis- 
tration, the  others  being  newly  appointed.  Of  these, 
Hooper,  who  was  chief  justice  of  New  Jersey  from  1725 
to  1738  with  the  exception  of  about  a  year  and  a  half, 
had  died  a  month  before  the  lords  of  trade  had  submitted 
the  list  to  the  king.  Wills,  because  of  old  age,  and  Van 
Horn,  because  of  business  affairs,  were  dismissed  at  their 
own  request.1  Provost  was  suspended  in  1740  because 
of  persistent  refusals  to  attend,  and  Schuyler  being  part 
owner  "  of  the  famous  Jersey  Coppermine "  was  dis- 
charged because  council  attendance  prejudiced  his  pri- 
vate affairs.2  Among  the  discharged  members,  Morris 
thought  the  public  service  suffered  only  in  the  loss  of 
Schuyler,  which  may  account  for  his  readiness  to  dismiss 
them. 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  121.  ■  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  105. 


53]  THE  COUNCIL  53 

Thomas  Farmer  had  been  chief  justice  from  March, 
1728,  to  November,  1729,  but  had  probably  been  re- 
moved because  of  insanity.  Cosby  had  recommended 
him  for  the  council  in  1734,  and  his  name  appears  in 
Morris's  instructions,  but  representing  Middlesex  County 
in  the  assembly  at  that  time,  he  retained  that  position, 
and  did  not  move  to  the  other  house.  Thus  reduced  to 
but  six  members  resident  in  the  province,  Morris,  con- 
sistent with  his  instructions,  appointed  Peter  Baynton, 
who  of  all  the  trustees  appointed  by  the  assembly  to 
furnish  certain  supplies  for  the  troops  acted  according  to 
the  governor's  ideas  of  proper  conduct.1  Smith  and 
Rodman  were  both  West  Jersey  Quakers,  the  former 
having  been  characterized  by  Morris  at  an  earlier  time 
as  "a  quiet  inoffensive  person,"  the  latter  as  "a  man  of 
good  temper  of  a  good  estate  in  Jersie  and  Pensilvania 
and  generally  well  esteemed  both  by  Quakers  and 
others."  a  Regarding  Lyell  little  is  known,  except  that 
he  was  a  Perth  Amboy  merchant.3  Reading,  a  West 
Jersey  proprietor,  was  an  influential  member  of  the 
council,  having  been  councillor  since  1720  under  Burnet. 
He  it  was  who  objected  to  assuming  the  administration 
at  Belcher's  death.  Princeton  College  received  freely  of 
his  wealth  and  energies,  and  indeed  his  death  deprived 
the  province  of  one  of  its  most  honored  servants.4  Of 
three  other  councillors,  John  Hamilton,  R.  H.  Morris, 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  106. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  317.  *Ibid.,  p.  155. 

•There  is  a  letter  in  the  Belcher  Papers,  under  date  of  Dec.  16,  1747, 
showing  that  Reading  asked  permission  to  resign  as  early  as  that 
date,  but  he  was  not  actually  relieved  from  duties  until  1758.  The 
letter  is  such  a  characteristic  Belcher  epistle  that  an  extract  is  here 
given.  After  regretting  the  necessity  of  Reading's  resignation,  the 
governor  continues,  "  I  wish  your  Fears,"  evidently  regarding  his  own 
and  Mrs.  Reading's  health,  "  may  be  turned  into  Joye  and  thanksgiv- 


54  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [54 

and  James  Alexander  who  served  from  the  beginning  of 
Morris's  administration,  a  more  extended  account  should 
be  given. 

The  son  of  Andrew  Hamilton,  the  last  provincial  gov- 
ernor under  the  proprietors,  John  Hamilton  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  council  under  Hunter.1  This  was  his  first 
appointment  to  public  office,  but  as  early  as  1694  his 
name  became  known  in  connection  with  the  first  estab- 
lishment of  post  offices  in  America.  He  was  appointed 
second  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1735,  but  later 
resigned  the  position  because  the  salary  would  "  scarce 
maintain  a  foot-man."2  The  result  of  the  contest  for 
the  council  presidency  did  not  leave  Morris  kindly  dis- 
posed to  Hamilton,  and  we  find  the  governor  mentioning 
to  the  lords  of  trade  in  May  1739,  that  Hamilton  though 
a  councillor  for  West  Jersey,  lives  in  East  Jersey,  and  to 
his  knowledge  has  never  had  an  estate  in  the  former 
division,  evidently  not  unwilling  that  the  Lords  should 
regard  such  a  course  as  improper.3  In  fact  Morris  with 
questionable  dignity  soon  became  involved  in  a  more 
pronounced  contest  with  Hamilton.  After  the  warrants 
for  salaries  had  been  signed  in  1739,  Hamilton  applied 
for  the  portion  of  his  salary  as  council  president,  up  to 
that  time  unpaid.  Morris  not  only  refused  to  grant 
that,  but  notified  the  councillor,  that  he  should  pay 
Morris  the  money  received  by  him  as  president  of  the 
upper  house  since  Morris's  arrival  in  1736.4     After  an  in- 

ing,  on  Mrs.  Reading's  ace* — you  know  Its  easy  for  our  Bless'd  Saviour 
to  Say  to  you  as  to  the  Noble  man  in  the  Gospel  in  a  Like  occasion — 
thy  Wife  Liveth— and  in  your  own  Case  as  to  the  poor  Paralitick— 
Arise  and  take  up  thy  Bed  and  Walk.  But  these  things  Sir  we  Are  to 
humbly  hope  for  in  Faith  and  Prayer." 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  iv,  p.  182.  2  Morris  Papers,  p.  48. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  54.  *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  69. 


55]  THB  COUNCIL  S5 

terval  of  four  years  the  governor,  in  March  1743,  brought 
suit  against  Hamilton  for  £3,000  damages,  and  the  latter 
asked  the  lords  of  trade  for  a  letter  certifying  the  incor- 
rectness of  the  governor's  attitude.1  To  his  satisfaction, 
the  lords  of  trade  informed  Hamilton  that  from  March 
1736  until  the  issue  of  Morris's  commission  they*had 
regarded  him  as  "the  legal  President  and  Commander 
in  Chief  of  the  Provinces  of  East  and  West  Jersey."  2 
The  governor's  position  in  that  matter  was  clearly  un- 
warranted. It  was  perhaps  the  irony  of  fate  that  John 
Hamilton  should  outlive  Morris  and  become  acting  gov- 
ernor again  at  the  latter's  death. 

Robert  Hunter  Morris,  one  of  the  new  members  of  his 
father's  council,  having  great  natural  ability  and  favored 
with  unusual  advantages,  developed  into  one  of  the  ablest 
men  of  this  period  of  New  Jersey's  history.  Upon  the 
death  of  Hooper,  young  Morris  was  appointed  by  his 
father,  with  the  approval  of  the  council,  as  chief  justice 
of  the  province,  a  position  which  he  held  for  twenty-six 
years.  During  this  time  he  was  absent  for  five  years  in 
England,  going  on  a  mission  for  the  council,  but  also 
doubtless  interested  in  the  appointment  as  lieutenant 
governor  of  New  York.  He  returned,  however,  in  1754 
with  the  commission  of  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  a 
position  which  proved  uncongenial  and  was  resigned 
after  two  years.  One  of  the  most  active  of  the  East 
Jersey  proprietors,  he  was  constantly  solicitous  for  their 
interests.  Opposed  to  Belcher's  conduct  in  the  land 
riots,  he  became  an  aggressive  opponent  of  that  gover- 
nor, influencing  the  crown's  appointments  to  that  gen- 
tleman's council,  and  making  him  fear  lest  he  should 
lose  the  governorship.     He  died  suddenly  while  attend- 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  151.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  153. 


56  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [56 

ing  a  dance  at  Shrewsbury,  in  January,  1764.  The  his- 
torian Smith  wrote,  "  Unhappy  Jersey  has  lost  her  best 
ornament."  x 

At  a  time  when  the  rights  of  the  New  Jersey  proprie- 
tors were  so  violently  opposed,  they  were  fortunate  to 
have  two  such  able  intercessors  in  the  government  as 
Robert  Hunter  Morris  and  James  Alexander.  Not  only 
is  Alexander's  name  omitted  from  the  list  in  Governor 
Morris's  instructions,  but  the  lords  of  trade  in  reporting 
to  the  king  remarked  that  "  We  have  been  informed  that 
he  is  a  Person  not  proper  to  serve  in  that  Station." 
Their  informant  had  been  Governor  Cosby,  to  whom 
Alexander  became  particularly  obnoxious  in  connection 
with  the  famous  Zenger  trial,  in  which  trial  he  had  vol- 
unteered his  services  in  defence  of  John  Peter  Zenger. 
Although  he  came  to  America  in  1716  in  order  to  escape 
the  possible  consequences  of  his  having  aided  the  Eng- 
lish Pretender,  he  appeared  to  have  Whig  principles  in 
the  colonies,  where  his  advancement  was  rapid.  He  was 
surveyor  general  of  both  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  as 
well  as  a  councillor  in  both  provinces.  An  order  rein- 
stating Alexander  in  the  council  does  not  appear,  but 
Morris  improperly  regarded  him  as  a  member  in  May, 
1739,2  and  at  that  time  included  his  name  in  a  list  of 
councillors  submitted  to  the  lords  of  trade. 

The  truth  is  there  was  some  questionable  maneuvering 
on  the  part  of  the  proprietary  interests  regarding  Alex- 
ander's appointment  to  the  council.  Paris,  the  pro- 
prietary agent,  stated  that  clerical  blunders  caused  the 
omission  of  Alexander's  name  from  the  Morris  instruc- 
tions, but  this  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  statement 

1  For  an  excellent  sketch  of  Mr.  Morris,  see  Field,  Provincial  Courts, 
p.  144. 
*  Morris  Papers,  p.  54. 


57]  THE  COUNCIL  57 

regarding  Alexander  when  Morris's  instructions  were 
sent  to  the  king  for  approval.  Charles  Read,  at  Belcher's 
suggestion,  was  named  a  councillor  in  the  original  in- 
structions of  that  official.  Paris  represented,  or  mis- 
represented, the  facts  in  such  a  way  to  the  lords  of  trade 
that  they  recalled  Belcher's  commission  and  instructions, 
destroyed  the  first  sheet,  engrossed  it  with  Alexander's 
name,  and  omitted  Read's. 

Residing  in  New  York,  he  rarely  attended  council 
meetings  and  Morris  excused  his  absence  to  the  home 
authorities  on  the  ground  that  he  was  building  a  house.1 
Alexander  was  an  able  supporter  of  the  governor  and 
his  loss  on  the  council  would  have  been  felt.  In  the 
legal  profession  he  stood  high,  having  been  the  author 
of  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  while  he  was  a 
scientist  of  ability,  and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  "Amer- 
ican Philosophical  Society."  In  connection  with  the 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  boundary  dispute,  and  the 
efforts  of  the  proprietors  to  assert  their  claims  against 
the  people,  the  name  of  James  Alexander  must  ever  be 
recorded  in  New  Jersey  history.  He  died  in  1756  while 
on  a  trip  to  Albany,  his  place  on  the  New  Jersey  coun- 
cil being  filled  by  the  appointment  of  his  illustrious  son, 
William  Alexander,  Earl  of  Stirling,  one  of  the  generals 
of  the  Revolution. 

As  the  council  stood  in  October,  1749,  there  were  only 
four  members  from  each  division,  making  it  difficult  to 
obtain  a  quorum.  Morris  urged  the  appointment  of 
Archibald  Home  and  John  Allen,  for  the  western  division, 
and  Edward  Antill  and  Richard  Ashfield  for  the  eastern 
division.  Allen,  who  was  the  West  Jersey  treasurer,  and 
Ashfield,  who  had  been  recommended  by  Morris  to  give 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  107. 


58  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [58 

the  proprietors  additional  influence,  were  not  appointed.1 
Home,  whose  special  qualification  seemed  to  be  that  as 
he  was  clerk  of  the  council  and  obliged  to  attend,  a 
quorum  would  be  more  readily  obtained,  was  appointed 
and  served  until  his  death  in  1745.2  Antill,  who  was 
Governor  Morris's  son-in-law,  and  an  East  Jersey  pro- 
proprietor,  was  also  appointed.  Morris  hoped  and  be- 
lieved he  "  would  prove  a  useful  and  deserving  member," 
as  indeed  he  had  up  to  this  time  in  the  assembly.3  He 
served  until  suspended  by  Boone  in  1761  for  non-attend- 
ance, which  suspension  was  confirmed  by  the  royal 
officials.4 

By  1745  the  deaths  of  Lyell,  Baynton  and  Home  had 
depleted  the  council,  rendering  the  conduct  of  busi- 
ness so  difficult  that  the  assembly  complained.5  Conse- 
quently the  governor  urged  upon  the  lords  of  trade  the 
desirability  of  having  a  full  council,  in  order  to  leave  as 
little  room  as  possible  to  "  the  Assembly  for  murmur  or 
clamor/'6  To  complete  the  twelve,  in  January,  1745, 
Andrew  Johnston,  Peter  Kemble,  James  Hude,  John 
Coxe,  and  Thomas  Leonard  were  recommended,  all  of 
whom  subsequently  were  appointed.7  Andrew  Johnston 
was  a  Perth  Amboy  merchant,  a  prominent  East  Jersey 
proprietor,  and  was  speaker  of  the  assembly  from  1740 
until  his  entrance  upon  duties  as  a  councillor.  His  repu- 
tation was  of  the  highest,  the  New  York  "  Mercury  "  print- 
ing at  his  death  the  statement  that  "he  was  really  equal  to 
what  Pope  means  when  he  says  ;  '  An  honest  man  is  the 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  109.  2 Ibid.,  p.  127. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  no.  *Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  209. 

hIbid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  232.  6 Morris  Papers,  p.  220. 

7  /V«  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  233.  Of  these  five  men,  four  were  pallbearers 
at  Morris's  funeral. 


59]  THE  COUNCIL  59 

noblest  work  of  God  ! '  " T  Peter  Kemble  was  an  East 
Jersey  merchant.  Hude  was  a  prominent  citizen  of  New 
Brunswick,  who  performed  with  credit  the  duties  of  num- 
erous public  offices,  and  was  according  to  the  New  York 
"Mercury,"  distinguished  "for  his  great  probity,  justice, 
affability,  moral  and  political  virtues."8  The  John  Coxe 
whom  Governor  Morris  recommended  was  the  grandson 
of  the  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe,  prominent  in  the  earlier  history 
of  the  province.  His  appointment  added  to  the  council 
another  influential  proprietor,  as  he  was  a  prominent 
member  of  the  West  Jersey  council  of  proprietors.  Dur- 
ing the  land  disputes  in  Governor  Belcher's  administra- 
tion he  was  so  active  in  support  of  the  proprietors,  that 
threats  were  made  against  his  person  and  property.3 
With  Robert  Hunter  Morris  and  James  Alexander,  he 
became  one  of  Belcher's  bitter  opponents,  unbridling  his 
tongue  to  such  an  extent  that  the  governor  suspended 
him  from  the  council.  The  affidavits  which  were  sent  to 
England  readily  convinced  the  authorities  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  suspension,  and  Belcher  was  upheld  by 
Coxe's  removal  in  1751.4  As  early  as  Governor  Hun- 
ter's administration,  Thomas  Leonard  had  been  recom- 
mended in  1 718  for  the  council. s  He  was  a  prosperous 
land  holder  living  near  Princeton,  who  served  the  com- 
munity in  public  office,  and  as  trustee  of  Princeton  Col- 
lege for  many  years.  Because  of  infirmity  he  resigned 
his  seat  in  the  upper  house  in  1759.6  There  were  no 
other  changes  in  the  council  under  Morris. 

1  New  York  Mercury,  July  5,  1762. 

1  Ibid.,  Nov.  1,  1762.     The  quotation  may  be  recognized  as  an  ab- 
stract from  an  obituary  notice. 
*  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  467,  470;  vol.  vii,  p.  450. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  540-550,  589. 
5 Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  377.  8 Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  127. 


60  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [60 

It  was  without  doubt  Morris's  desire  to  surround  him- 
self in  the  council  with  some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the 
colony.  The  difficulty  of  inducing  men  of  the  proper 
calibre  to  act  as  councillors  was  aggravated,  Morris 
complained,  because  of  the  insufficient  salary.  The  gov- 
ernor, however,  was  a  politician,  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  word,  and  sought  to  have  his  council  first  of  all 
friendly  to  government.  The  council,  as  constituted 
during  the  latter  part  of  his  rule,  gave  the  proprietary 
interests  a  predominating  influence,  and  made  it  an  ob- 
ject of  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  people  who  were 
opposing  the  proprietors.  That  was  perhaps  a  natural 
result,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  governor  used  his 
power  improperly.  He  acted  the  part  of  a  shrewd  poli- 
tician, safeguarding  his  interests.  To  a  man  like  Belcher, 
who  sought  to  conciliate  the  opposing  elements  in  the 
province,  the  council  which  Morris  bequeathed  him  was 
a  handicap,  a  source  of  annoyance,  if  not  indeed  a 
menace. 

The  royal  instructions  to  Belcher  properly  named  as 
his  councillors  Hamilton,  Reading,  Alexander,  Rodman, 
Smith,  Morris,  Antill,  Hude,  Coxe,  Johnston,  Kemble 
and  Leonard,  all  of  whom  except  the  three  first  named 
had  been  appointed  upon  Governor  Morris's  recom- 
mendation.1 The  Surveyor  General  of  Customs,  Thomas 
Lechmere,  was  appointed  Councillor  Extraordinary. 
The  first  change  was  occasioned  by  the  death  of  Ham- 
ilton. There  now  began  a  contest  between  Belcher  and 
the  proprietary  interests  for  the  control  of  council  ap- 
pointments, a  contest  in  which  the  advantage  was  gained 
by  the  proprietors. 

In    June,    1748,    Belcher   recommended    that    Charles 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  6. 


6i]  THE  COUNCIL  Ol 

Read,  a  deputy  secretary  of  the  province  and  collector 
of  customs  at  Burlington  should  be  appointed.1  He 
resided  in  West  Jersey,  and  about  the  same  time  the 
governor  recommended  him  to  the  West  Jersey  pro- 
prietors as  an  agent  qualified  to  look  after  their  inter- 
ests.3 On  the  other  hand,  his  appointment  was  so  vig- 
orously opposed  by  Paris,  the  East  Jersey  proprietary 
agent  and  Robert  Hunter  Morris  in  London,  that  their 
man,  Richard  Salter,  was  appointed.3  The  "  imagina- 
c'ons  "  of  the  lords  of  trade,  that  Belcher  had  submitted 
for  confirmation  certain  acts  of  the  legislature  in  which 
he  was  interested,  were  encouraged  by  Paris,  and  he  con- 
summated this  "bold  Stroke,"  as  he  terms  it.  Belcher 
complained  of  this  appointment  on  the  ground  that  a 
West  Jerseyman  should  have  received  it  in  order  to 
maintain  the  equality  of  the  provincial  divisions,  the  ap- 
pointment of  an  East  Jerseyman  at  this  time  not  being 
in  conformity  to  his  instructions.4  The  appointee  was  a 
man  of  considerable  ability,  and  served  also  for  almost 
ten  years  as  associate  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.5  He 
served  in  the  council  until  his  death  in  1763. 

The  struggle  for  control  of  the  council  continued  with 
the  subsequent  recommendations.  In  the  place  of  Coxe, 
whose  suspension  has  been  mentioned,  the  governor 
recommended  William  Morris,  a  Hunterdon  County 
judge,  at  the  same  time  warning  agent  Partridge  that 
"the  young  Gentln6  on  yr  Side  the  Water  Perhaps  May 
Oppose  it  at  ye  Board  of  Trade  and  Say  he  is  a  Quaker 

1 N.  J.  A.,  p.  139.  *Ibid.,  p.  150. 

%  Ibid.,  pp.  169,  175.  *  Ibid.,  p.  247. 

6  Read  himself  urged  Salter  for  the  chief  justiceship,  so  that  there  evi- 
dently was  no  hard  feeling  between  the  two  men. 
6  Robert  Hunter  Morris. 


62  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [62 

&c." l  The  recommendation  was  successfully  opposed, 
and  David  Ogden,  an  associate  with  Alexander  and 
R.  H.  Morris  in  extensive  land  deals,  was  appointed.2 
Ogden  was  a  distinguished  lawyer,  and  as  one  of  the 
counsel  for  the  proprietors  in  suits  against  the  Eliza- 
bethtown  associates  became  unpopular  with  the  people. 
A  man  of  conspicuous  ability  and  integrity,  he  was  in 
1772  appointed  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which 
position  he  filled  until  his  opposition  to  open  resistance 
against  the  mother  country  led  him  to  seek  safety  within 
the  British  lines  in  New  York  City,  where  he  became  an 
active  loyalist.  "He  was  looked  upon  as  an  oracle  of 
the  law,  and  his  opinions  had  almost  the  weight  of 
judicial  decisions/'3 

Upon  the  death  of  Richard  Smith  in  November,  1750, 
Belcher  recommended  his  son  Samuel  for  the  position. 
He  was  a  West  Jersey  Quaker,  and  both  he  and  his 
father  had  always  supported  the  people  against  the  pro- 
prietors. Consequently  opposition  to  Samuel  Smith's 
appointment  was  a  foregone  conclusion,  and  the  pro- 
prietors succeeded  in  having  Lewis  Ashfield  appointed 
to  fill  the  vacancy.  Governor  Belcher  was  reproved  for 
recommending  Samuel  Smith,  and  for  having  previously 
recommended  William  Morris,  because,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  lords  of  trade,  they  were  "  Persons  disaffected  to 
His  Majesty's  Government."4  Lewis  Ashfield,  nephew 
of  Robert  H.  Morris,  was  recommended  by  the  lords  of 
trade  to  supply  the  vacancy,  and  was  appointed  April 
30,  1 75 1.5  The  reproof  administered  by  the  home  offi- 
cials quite  naturally  displeased  the   governor,  and  affi- 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  575,  577. 

■  Ibid.,  pp.  578,  588.  3  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  182  et  seq. 

4 N.J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  585.  b  Ibid.,  pp.  585,  590. 


63]  THE  COUNCIL  63 

davits  testifying  to  the  uprightness  of  Morris's  character 
were  sent  for  Partridge  to  lay  before  the  lords  of  trade.1 
With  the  discrediting  of  Belcher's  nominations,  a  lack  of 
harmony  in  the  government  naturally  resulted,  and  Part- 
ridge was  urged  to  secure  Morris's  appointment  to  the 
next  vacancy.2  Belcher  wrote  repeatedly  to  the  royal 
officials  that  government  was  weakened  when  private 
persons  and  subordinate  officials  directed  the  council 
appointments,  and  urged  that  his  administration  be  not 
misrepresented  to  them  by  Morris  "  or  any  other 
Splenetick  Gent1."3 

It  was  only  after  a  long  contest,  however,  that  Gov- 
ernor Belcher  allowed  Ashfield  to  take  his  seat  in  the 
council.  The  governor's  opportunity  came,  when,  in 
October  21,  1751,  a  bill  of  indictment  was  brought 
against  Ashfield  for  having  profanely  sworn  against  the 
king's  laws,  and  having  at  the  same  time  made  an  assault 
upon  John  Hite,  a  Middlesex  County  constable.4  The 
alleged  assault  was  committed  on  August  4,  1751,  and 
on  September  24  Ashfield  presented  his  mandamus  to 
the  council  to  the  governor,  who  notified  him,  however, 
that  not  until  he  was  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  which 
he  stood  indicted,  would  he  be  admitted  to  his  seat.5 
The  council  asked  Belcher  to  lay  before  them  proofs  to 
show  his  authority  in  refusing  the  would-be  councillor 
admission,  but  the  governor  refused  to  comply  with 
their  request.6  Ashfield  memorialized  the  council  with 
his  side  of  the  case,  submitting  certain  affidavits  in  his 
favor,  after  the  consideration  of  which,  the  council  pro- 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  602;  Belcher  Papers,  June  3,  1751. 
*  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  600.  " Ibid.,  pp.  594,  607,  611. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  612.  5  Ibid.,  p.  617. 

6 Ibid.,  p.  617. 


64  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [64 

nounced  for  him.1  Boldly  declaring  the  council's  action 
an  encroachment  upon  his  authority  and  an  indignity  to 
the  king,  Belcher  charged  the  council  not  to  meddle  in 
a  concern  in  which  he  alone  was  accountable  to  the 
crown.2 

Meanwhile  the  case  was  tried  in  March,  1752,  in  the 
Supreme  Court  at  Perth  Amboy.  Ashfield  was  acquitted 
by  what  the  attorney  general  called  a  "  Nice  Distinction 
in  Law."  The  identical  words  charged  in  the  indictment 
were  not  supported  by  any  witnesses  for  the  king,  ex- 
cept three,  whom  Judge  Nevill,  one  of  the  Supreme 
Court  Judges,  writing  to  Belcher  after  the  trial  said 
were  "  all  in  the  Heat  of  Blood,  and  warmly  engagd  in 
the  Quarrel."3  The  court  mentioned  that  to  the  jury, 
and  after  only  a  brief  deliberation,  the  accused  was  ac- 
quitted. Notwithstanding  the  acquittal,  the  governor 
maintained  that  the  testimony  brought  out  at  the  trial 
proved  Ashfield  to  be  an  undesirable  citizen  and  unfit 
for  the  council.4  To  support  his  contention  he  trans- 
mitted some  papers  regarding  the  trial  to  the  lords  of 
trade,  among  them  the  "  Notes  of  Mr.  Warrell,  the 
King's  Attorney-General,  upon  the  Trial  of  Mr.  Lewis 
Morris  Ashfield,"  which  spoke  strongly  of  "  his  Irregular 
and  Outrageous  Behaviour,"  "  His  gross  Vulgar  un- 
seemly Language."5 

gg;After  his  acquittal,  the  council  again  sought  to  hasten 
Ashfield's  entrance  into  their  midst,  but  the  governor 
gave  them  scant  satisfaction.6  Despite  the  fact  that  Gov- 
ernor Belcher  had  urged  Lord   Halifax   to   let   Robert 

1  N.  J.  A.,   vol.  xvi,  p.  324.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  634. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  40.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  in. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  102.     Ashfield  was  the  grandson  of  Gov.  Lewis  Morris 
8 Ibid.,  p.  101. 


65j  THE  COUNCIL  65 

Hunter  Morris  "  cast  no  mist  before  your  eyes  "  in  palli- 
ation for  his  nephew's  misconduct,  the  royal  authorities 
disapproved  of  Belcher's  attitude  towards  Ashfield.  The 
acquitted  gentleman's  indiscretion  was  granted,  but  not 
deemed  sufficient  to  cause  him  the  loss  of  his  seat  in  the 
council.1  His  immediate  admission  was  ordered,  which 
event  occurred  on  May  23,  1753.2 

During  this  controversy,  Governor  Belcher  had  pro- 
posed an  additional  reason  against  the  admission  of  Ash- 
field to  the  council,  namely,  that  it  was  contrary  to  his 
instructions,  because  it  gave  East  Jersey  a  majority  of 
councillors.  A  petition  from  some  West  Jersey  inhabi- 
tants complained  against  this,  and  the  governor  con- 
tinued to  notify  the  lords  of  trade.3  Partridge  also  at 
Belcher's  request  notified  the  authorities  of  this  disparity, 
claiming  that  nine  lived  in  East  Jersey,  two  in  West 
Jersey,  and  one  contrary  to  all  precedent  in  New  York, 
which  resulted  in  an  injurious  inequality.4  James  Alex- 
ander's figures  indicated,  on  the  other  hand,  that  West 
Jersey  could  lay  claim  to  seven  councillors,  and  cited  the 
cases  of  Lewis  Morris,  Thomas  Byerly,  and  William  Pro-* 
vost  as  precedents  for  councillors  living  in  New  York.5 
Robert  Hunter  Morris  notified  the  lords  of  trade  to  that 
effect.6  In  the  case  of  the  unequal  representation  the 
proprietors  went  too  far  in  proving  their  contention, 
while  in  the  citation  of  precedents  of  allowing  a  New 
Jersey  councillor  to  reside  in  New  York  they  were 
doubtless  correct.  Alexander  maintained  that  "  as  the 
Law  of  England  Esteems  one  Resident  where  he  has  a 
Freehold,"   and    seven    councillors    owned    property   in 

1  N.  J.  A,,  vol.  viii,  p.  124.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  402. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  13.  *  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  18. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  644.  •  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  13. 


66  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [66 

West  Jersey,  that  division  was  not  at  any  disadvantage. 
On  the  same  principle,  of  course,  East  Jersey  might  be 
said  to  have  had  a  decided  advantage.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  whole  affair  was  somewhat  of  a  quibble,  for  the 
division  was  at  this  time  little  more  than  a  name,  and  in 
the  case  of  the  council  membership  was  kept  up  as  a 
handy  argument  in  case  of  need.  Technically  according 
to  his  instructions  Governor  Belcher,  however,  was  right. 
There  were  two  other  council  appointments  during 
this  administration,  the  earlier  one  the  appointment  of 
William  Alexander,  Earl  of  Stirling,  to  succeed  his  father 
James  Alexander.  This  was  the  first  council  recommen- 
dation of  Belcher's  that  was  approved.1  Opposition  to 
this  excellent  appointment,  however,  there  was  none, 
because  the  young  Alexander  succeeded  to  the  large 
proprietary  holdings  of  his  father.2  Going  to  England  in 
1756,  with  General  Shirley,  whose  aide-de-camp  and  pri- 
vate secretary  he  had  been  during  the  Fourth  Intercolo- 
nial War,  Alexander  successfully  strove  for  the  earldom 
of  Stirling,  to  which  his  father,  though  entitled,  had 
never  laid  claim.3  It  was  in  April,  1756,  that  Belcher 
recommended  Alexander  for  the  council,  but  it  was  not 
until  1 761  that  he  returned  from  England  and  took  his 
seat.4  A  residence  at  Baskingridge,  New  Jersey,  at  first 
used  only  in  summers,  later  came  to  be  his  permanent 
abode.  From  the  time  that  the  Earl  of  Stirling  entered 
the  council,  it  was  not  the  affairs  of  the  proprietors  but 
the  resistance  to  parliamentary  taxation  that  was  of 
prime  importance.  His  attitude  of  bold  and  active  oppo- 
sition to  the  obnoxious  measures  of  Parliament  and  his 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  p.  214. 

1  Duer,  Life  af  Earl  of  Stirling,  p.  10. 

% Ibid.,  pp.  10-26.  *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  214. 


67]  THE  COUNCIL  67 

able  services  to  the  patriot  cause  during  the  Revolution 
are  matters  of  common  knowledge,  to  which  reference 
will  necessarily,  however,  subsequently  be  made.  The 
Earl  of  Stirling  was  suspended  from  the  council  in  1775 
by  Governor  Franklin  because  he  accepted  a  commission 
as  colonel  in  the  continental  army.1 

A  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  John  Rodman,  was 
filled  in  1757  by  the  appointment  of  Samuel  Woodruff,  a 
prominent  Elizabethtown  Presbyterian  and  close  friend 
of  Governor  Belcher's.3 

Belcher  wrote  to  Partridge  in  November,  1751,  "that 
while  so  many  of  the  Council  were  such  large  Pro- 
prietors of  Lands  &  are  so  partial  in  managing  the 
Affairs  of  the  Legislature  I  expect  nothg  but  Confusion 
in  the  Government."3  The  governor  felt  that  the  inter- 
ests of  both  parties  should  be  more  equally  represented 
in  the  council.  The  proprietors  believed  that  during 
this  period,  so  critical  for  their  interests,  they  should 
absolutely  control  the  council  to  offset  the  popular  ten- 
dency of  the  lower  house.  Governor  Morris  was  if  any- 
thing partial  to  the  proprietors,  and  they  failed,  or 
refused,  to  appreciate  the  attempts  of  his  successor  to 
maintain  an  impartial  attitude  in  the  land  disputes.  The 
fact  that  all  of  Governor  Belcher's  recommendations  to 
council  except  two  were  refused,  is  evidence  sufficient  of 
the  superiority  of  proprietary  influence  at  the  court.  It 
is  doubtless  true,  certainly  so  in  the  cases  of  Ogden  and 
Salter,  that  the  proprietary  nominees  were  men  of  ability 
superior  to  those  recommended  by  Belcher. 

It  was  quite  natural  that  during  the  brief  rules  of  Ber- 
nard, Boone,  and  Hardy  there  should  be  no  alignment 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  665.  8 Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  236. 

*  Belcher  Papers,  Nov.  11,  1751. 


68  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [68 

of  parties  in  connection  with  council  appointments.  The 
administrations  were  too  brief  and  domestic  affairs  within 
the  province  came  to  be  of  less  importance  in  the  excite- 
ment of  the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War  and  with  the 
approach  of  the  Revolution.  The  resignations  of  Read- 
ing and  Leonard  because  "  of  their  Age  and  Infirmities  " 
were  accepted,  and  Charles  Read  and  John  Smith  were 
appointed,  upon  the  recommendation  of  Governor  Ber- 
nard.1 Read  was  the  Burlington  collector  of  customs 
and  provincial  secretary  who  had  been  recommended  for 
the  council  by  Belcher.  He  was  in  1764  appointed  as 
chief  justice  to  succeed  Morris,  but  held  the  position 
only  a  short  time,  perhaps  because  he  did  not  satisfy. 
Smith,  learning  of  the  appointment,  had  written:  "  Frank- 
lin after  Boone — after  Morris,  Read !  Patience,  kind 
heavens!"2  John  Smith,  a  liberal  Quaker,  before  his 
removal  to  Burlington  was  a  prosperous  Philadelphia 
trader.  He  removed  to  Burlington  and  after  the 
death  of  his  beloved  wife  retired  from  business,  and 
lived  a  quiet  but  useful  life  until  his  death  in  1771.  After 
Boone  and  Hardy  had  both  recommended  the  suspension 
of  Antill,  he  was  superseded  in  the  council  in  1776  by 
John  Stevens.3  Stevens  was  an  East  Jersey  proprietor, 
but  lived  in  New  York  City  from  1761  to  1771.  For 
ten  years  previous  to  his  removal  to  New  York  he  had 
been  a  prominent  member  of  the  New  Jersey  assembly, 
and  after  resuming  his  residence  in  New  Jersey  was 
closely  identified  with  the  American  cause  in  the  Revo- 
lution, being  president  of  the  Convention  which  ratified 
the  Constitution  of   1787.4     Johnston  died  during  Gov- 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  151.  'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  158. 

5 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  239;  vol.  ix,  pp.  317,  335. 
4 Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  335,  note. 


69]  THE  COUNCIL  Cig 

ernor  Hardy's  administration,  but  the  vacancy  was  not 
filled  until  after  Franklin  had  taken  charge. 

Early  in  Franklin's  administration  there  were  three 
vacancies  to  be  filled,  those  caused  by  the  death  of 
Johnston,  Salter  and  Hude.  Governor  Hardy  had  told 
the  lords  of  trade  that  in  West  Jersey  he  could  not  find 
persons  "  fit  for  the  Council,"  and  Governor  Franklin 
made  the  same  complaint.1  He  said  that  West  Jersey 
had  only  two  councillors,  but  to  fill  these  three  vacancies 
he  could  find  only  two  in  that  division  suitable  for  the 
place,  namely  Samuel  Smith  and  John  Ladd,  and  would 
doubtless  have  to  recommend  an  East  Jerseyman  for  the 
third  place.2  Smith  and  Ladd  were  subsequently  ap- 
pointed, by  an  order  in  council  dated  August  31,  1763.3 
The  former  was  the  same  gentleman,  who,  when  pre- 
viously recommended  by  Belcher,  had  been  condemned 
as  "  a  Wellwisher  to  the  Rioters  and  his  family  Active  in 
that  Faction."4  Samuel  Smith,  the  brother  of  John, 
appointed  to  the  council  in  1758,  was  the  pioneer  his- 
torian of  New  Jersey.  He  was  a  benevolent  Quaker 
whose  influence  for  good  was  potent  in  the  province. 
Ladd,  son  of  the  gentleman  of  the  same  name,  was  a 
prominent  surveyor,  who  had  represented  Gloucester 
County  in  the  assembly.  Franklin  recommended  him  as 
"a  Gentn  of  Fortune  and  unblemished  Character."5  The 
place  of  Salter  was  filled  by  an  East  Jersey  proprietor, 
James  Parker,  of  Perth  Amboy,  whose  appointment  was 
approved  by  the  lords  of  trade  in  July,  1764.6  Although 
his  military  proclivities  led  him  to  serve  as  captain  in  the 
Canadian  campaign  of  1746,  during  the  American  Revo- 

lN.J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  364.  l  Ibid.,  p.  386. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  304.  *  Ibid.,  p.  586. 

5  Ibid. ,  p.  387.  6  Ibid.,  p.  442. 


jo  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [70 

lution  he  endeavored  to  remain  neutral.  His  neutrality 
was  the  cause  of  his  spending  some  of  his  time  in  the 
common  jail. 

Upon  the  death  of  Robert  Hunter  Morris,  the  authori- 
ties in  England  appointed  Frederick  Smyth  to  the  council, 
July  3,  1764.1  A  few  months  later  he  was  appointed 
chief  justice  of  the  province,  which  position  he  held  until 
the  overthrow  of  royal  authority.  His  attitude  during 
the  Stamp  Act  excitement  won  him  deserved  popularity, 
but  later  the  disapproval  of  active  opposition  to  the 
crown,  which  he  strongly  voiced  in  charges  to  two 
Grand  Juries,  brought  upon  him  popular  odium.2  Dur- 
ing and  after  the  Revolution  he  remained  quietly  at 
Philadelphia  until  his  death  in  1815.  He  was  an  able 
judge.  Richard  Stockton,  one  of  Smyth's  associates  on 
the  Supreme  Court  bench,  became  a  member  of  the 
council  in  1768  upon  the  decease  of  Woodruff.3  Stock- 
ton was  born  at  Princeton  and  was  graduated  in  the  first 
class  from  the  College  of  New  Jersey.  He  soon  attained 
eminence  as  a  lawyer.  He  was  one  of  New  Jersey's 
ablest  public  servants  during  the  troublous  period  from 
1770  until  1778,  when  his  health  was  broken  down  be- 
cause of  the  vile  and  shameless  treatment  to  which  he 
had  been  subjected  while  a  prisoner  in  the  hands  of  the 
British. 

During  the  rest  of  Franklin's  administration  there 
were  four  other  changes  in  the  council.  The  first  of 
these  was  the  appointment  of  Stephen  Skinner  to  suc- 
ceed   Ashfield,    deceased.      The    governor    had    recom- 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  442. 

*  For  his  charge  to  the  Essex  Grand  Jury  in  1774,  and  their  spirited 
reply,  see  Force,  American  Archives ,  Fourth  Series,  vol.  i,  p.  967. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  pp.  44,  59. 


7I]  THE  COUNCIL  yT 

mended  William  Bayard  for  the  vacancy,  but  the  lords 
of  trade  had  appointed  Skinner,  because  Bayard  was  not 
resident  in  the  colony  and  the  appointee  had  been  long 
on  their  list.1  Skinner  presented  his  mandamus  and  was 
admitted  to  council,  September  28,  1770.2  He  had  been 
the  East  Jersey  treasurer,  but  his  appointment  came  at  a 
most  unfortunate  time.  The  treasury  had  been  robbed, 
and  the  assembly,  charging  Skinner  with  negligence,  had 
been  engaged  in  a  hot  wrangle  with  the  governor  upon 
the  matter,  at  last  forcing  Skinner's  resignation  as  treas- 
urer. Following  directly  after  the  enforced  resignation, 
this  appointment  to  the  council  irritated  the  lower  house. 
The  former  treasurer  turned  loyalist  during  the  war,  and 
first  going  to  New  York  removed  from  there  to  England. 
In  November,  1771,  Daniel  Coxe  and  John  Lawrence 
were  admitted  to  the  council,  succeeding  Ladd  and  John 
Smith.3  This  Daniel  Coxe  was  the  fifth  of  the  same 
name  in  that  family  so  prominent  in  New  Jersey  history, 
and  was,  of  course,  associated  with  the  proprietors.  He 
was  an  ardent  and  active  Tory  during  the  war,  and  at  its 
close  went  to  England.4  The  last  recommendation  made 
to  fill  a  vacancy  in  the  New  Jersey  council  was  that  of 
Francis  Hopkinson,  to  take  the  seat  of  Charles  Read, 
who  moved  to  the  West  Indies.  He  was  appointed 
April  21,  1774.5  A  native  of  Pennsylvania,  his  connec- 
tion with  New  Jersey  history  was  slight.  He  was  a  gen- 
tleman of  remarkable  versatility,  being  at  one  time  or 
another  prose-writer,  poet,  statesman,  and  church  organ- 
ist. As  a  New  Jersey  delegate  to  the  Continental  Con- 
gress in   1776,  he  signed  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  139.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  185. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  259.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  225. 

%Ibid.,  pp.  426,  455- 


j2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [y2 

ence.  On  October  3,  1775,  Governor  Franklin  notified 
the  Earl  of  Dartmouth  that  Samuel  Smith  had  resigned 
his  seat  because  of  old  age,  but  that  he  had  been  unable 
to  induce  anyone,  whom  he  thought  qualified,  to  fill  the 
vacancy.1  And  he  was  spared  further  pains  in  the  mat- 
ter, for  the  people  of  New  Jersey  soon  called  upon  the 
faithful  Franklin  to  relinquish  his  authority. 

1  N.J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  665. 


CHAPTER  III 
The  Assembly — Position  and  Personnel 

East  and  West  Jersey  had  had  an  elective  assembly 
almost  from  the  earliest  part  of  the  proprietary  period. 
Consequently,  when  the  royal  charter  was  granted,  in 
1702,  it  was  not  only  natural,  but  was  also  necessary, 
that  there  should  be  an  assembly  elected  by  the  people. 
The  assembly  and  council  theoretically  had  coordinate 
powers  in  legislation,  but  in  practice  the  lower  house 
came  to  be  the  more  influential.1  The  usual  and  neces- 
sary rights  and  powers  of  legislative  bodies  were  given 
to  the  assembly,  but  all  acts  were  to  be  reviewed  by  the 
crown  and  might  be  disallowed.  Restrictions  were 
made  in  the  case  of  certain  acts,  however,  providing  that 
the  governor  should  not  assent  to  them  unless  added 
thereto  was  a  clause  suspending  their  operation  until 
the  royal  will  was  known. 

A  peculiar  feature  in  New  Jersey  was  that  the  sessions 
of  the  General  Assembly  were  held  alternately  at  Perth 
Amboy  and  Burlington.  This  was  a  relic  of  the  early 
divisions  of  East  and  West  Jersey,  but  it  was  a  distinc- 
tion idly  retained  and  a  source  of  annoyance  and  expense 
to  the  province.  The  governor,  with  the  advice  of 
council,  might  appoint  a  different  place  in  case  of  extra- 
ordinary necessity.  Whenever  this  was  done,  however, 
the  assembly  showed   a  very  petulant  and  disagreeable 

1  See  Tanner,  op.  tit.,  ch.  xx. 
73]  73 


74  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [74 

spirit.  The  governor's  house-rent  was  allowed  by  the 
assembly  only  if  the  executive  lived  at  Perth  Amboy  or 
Burlington,  and  the  inconvenience  of  having  two  capi- 
tal cities  was  a  subject  of  frequent  complaint  by  the 
governors. 

The  first  assembly  to  meet  Morris  resolved  that  it  was 
advantageous  for  the  province  to  have  but  one  place  of 
residence,  and  urged  the  governor  to  live  near  the  center 
of  the  province.1  Morris  refrained  from  answering  the 
resolution,  hoping  the  legislature  would  fix  upon  one 
place  for  the  capital  and  erect  suitable  buildings  there.2 
The  governor  reminded  the  lords  of  trade  of  the  disad- 
vantages of  the  plan  then  existing,  to  all  of  which  they 
agreed  but  refused  to  advise  the  king  to  order  a  change 
unless  the  council  and  assembly  concurred  in  a  humble 
petition  for  that  purpose.3  The  meaningless  excuse  that 
the  affairs  of  the  province  would  not  admit  of  a  sudden 
alteration,  was  pleaded  by  the  assembly  as  their  reason 
for  not  agreeing  to  the  governor's  proposal.4 

Morris,  despairing  of  the  assembly's  ever  erecting 
suitable  buildings  for  a  capital  in  some  centrally  located 
town,  leased  the  Kingsbury  estate  of  Governor  Thomas 
of  Pennsylvania.  It  was  less  than  a  mile  from  Trenton. 
Toward  the  end  of  his  administration  the  old  and  en- 
feebled governor  was  obliged  to  summon  the  legislature 
to  Trenton.  This  was  the  case  in  December,  1744,  and 
from  August,  1745,  to  the  end  of  his  administration. 
Upon  one  occasion  the  assembly  was  called  to  Kings- 
bury to  be  dissolved  in  person  by  the  governor.  Sharp 
messages  passed  between  the  governor  and  assembly 
because    of    the    latter's    inquisitiveness    regarding    the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  4,  1738.  *Ibid.,  Apr.  16,  1740. 

s  Morris  Papers,  p.  137.  *  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  3,  1741. 


75]  THE  ASSEMBLY  75 

authority  by  which  they  were  called  from  the  regular 
meeting-place.  That  Morris's  action  might  not  be 
deemed  a  precedent,  the  assembly  hoped  "  their  removal 
to  other  Places  will  not  be  drawn  into  practice,  oftener 
than  the  extraordinary  Occasions  of  his  Majesty's  service 
require  it."  x 

Governor  Belcher  also  realized  the  inconveniences  of 
alternate  meeting-places  for  the  legislature,  but  did  not 
obtrude  his  view  upon  an  unwilling  assembly.  When  it 
was  necessary  for  him  to  alter  the  regular  alternation  of 
meetings,  it  was  done  with  care  and  conciliation.  If  too 
much  opposition  was  expressed,  he  would  usually  pro- 
rogue the  assembly  until  such  time  as  he  believed  it  pos- 
sible for  him  to  meet  the  legislature  at  the  regular  place.3 
Believing  that  it  would  be  beneficial  to  his  health,  Gov- 
ernor Belcher  moved  to  Elizabethtown  in  1751,  to  which 
place  the  legislature  was  later  frequently  called.  In 
May,  1753,  the  assembly  resolved  that  after  the  death  or 
removal  of  Belcher  it  should  be  provided  in  the  support 
bills  that  sums  would  be  appropriated  only  on  condition 
that  the  governor  resided  at  Amboy  or  Burlington.3 
Opportunity  was  never  given  to  test  this  resolution,  for 
all  subsequent  governors  lived  at  one  or  the  other  city. 
It  actually  pained  Belcher  that  the  assembly  acted  with 
such  bad  grace  about  meeting  at  Elizabethtown. 

When,  after  Belcher's  death,  the  aged  Reading  unwill- 
ingly assumed  the  administration,  his  indisposition 
threatened  the  necessity  of  an  adjournment  to  Trenton.4 
The  house,  however,  firmly  refused  to  be  adjourned  to 
that  city.     They  intended  now  to  reassert  their  consti- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  11,  1746. 

%Ibid.,  Dec.  22,  1752;  Aug.  3,  1755.  *fbid.,  May  3,  1753. 

*  Ibid.,  Oct.  10,  1757. 


76  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [76 

tutional  right  of  sitting  at  Perth  Amboy  and  Burlington, 
though  they  had  recently  dispensed  with  this  out  of 
"tender  Compassion  to  the  advanced  Age  and  great  In- 
firmity "  of  their  late  governor.1  Thoroughly  aroused 
to  duty,  they  intended  to  assert  their  right  "  lest  a  con- 
tinued Suspension  of  an  unalienable  Privilege,  should 
hereafter  prompt  future  Governors  to  repeat  the  Pre- 
cedent of  calling  their  Assemblies  to  unconstitutional 
Places,  to  the  great  Prejudice  of  the  Publick  Good." 
What  high-sounding  language  over  a  trifle !  One  does 
not  wonder  that  men  capable  of  such  sentiments  under 
such  circumstances  and  so  sensitive  regarding  their  un- 
alienable privileges  and  constitutional  rights,  refused 
upon  principle  to  pay  the  stamp  tax  and  a  much  smaller 
tax  on  tea. 

Bernard,  Boone  and  Hardy  did  not  stay  long  enough 
to  test  the  assembly  upon  this  subject,  but  Franklin  did, 
to  his  sorrow  rather  than  to  his  satisfaction.  At  every 
opportunity  Franklin  endeavored  to  impress  the  assem- 
bly with  the  desirability  of  having  one  capital.  Failing 
in  that,  he  believed  that  the  intention  to  build  a  gov- 
ernor's residence  implied  in  the  support  bill  should  be 
acted  upon.2  When  the  royal  assent  was  finally  obtained 
to  the  bill  for  the  emission  of  f  100,000  in  bills  of  credit, 
the  assembly  was  urged  by  the  home  authorities  to  make 
proper  provision  for  the  erection  of  suitable  buildings 
for  the  use  of  the  governor,  council  and  assembly.  That 
was  in  1775,  and  the  assembly  excused  themselves  and 
made  noble  promises  for  the  next  session.  Governor 
Franklin  actually  believed  that  something  would  occur 
to  move  the  stolid  lower  house  from  its  lethargy  of  de- 
cades in  this  matter.     But  plans  miscarried !     The  royal 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1757.  *Ibid.y  June  3,  1765. 


77]  fHE  ASSEMBLY  yy 

fabric  tumbled  down,  arid  the  assembly  never  met  again 
under  the  authority  of  the  royal  charter. 

The  first  assembly  which  met  Governor  Morris  had 
twenty-four  members,  two  representatives  from  each  of 
the  ten  counties  and  two  members  each  for  the  cities  of 
Perth  Amboy  and  Burlington.  Such  had  been  the  con- 
stitution of  the  assembly  from  1727.  Its  members  were 
chosen  by  freeholders,  who  had  100  acres  of  land  in  their 
own  right,  or  real  or  personal  property  to  the  value  of 
£50  sterling.  The  representatives  elected  were  obliged 
to  have  1000  acres  of  land  or  £500  sterling.  The  gov- 
ernor was  forbidden  to  assent  to  any  law  which  changed 
the  number  or  duration  of  the  assembly,  the  qualifica- 
tions of  electors  or  elected,  or  altered  in  any  way  regu- 
lations previously  established  regarding  the  character  or 
position  of  the  lower  house  of  the  legislature. 

With  the  growth  in  population  and  the  development 
of  the  colony,  the  erection  of  new  counties  for  the  con- 
venience of  administration  became  necessary.  This  first 
became  apparent  in  Hunterdon  County,  where  the  resi- 
dents of  the  upper  part  of  the  county  were  inconveni- 
enced by  their  living  at  a  considerable  distance  from 
Trenton,  where  the  courts  were  held.  In  March,  1739, 
an  act  was  passed  "erecting  the  upper  Parts  of  the 
County  of  Hunterdon  "  into  Morris  County,  named  after 
the  governor.1  The  new  county  was  not  to  be  given 
representation  as  such  in  the  assembly  until  the  royal 
pleasure  was  known,  but  the  freeholders  were  to  con- 
tinue to  vote  for  representatives  with  Hunterdon  County.2 
The  actual  division  of  the  province  was  so  real  that,  had 
two  added   representatives  been  given  to  West  Jersey, 

1  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey,  p.  109. 
*  Morris  Papers,  p.  55. 


78  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [78 

Morris  declared  that  East  Jersey  must  necessarily  also 
have  two  more. 

In  1748  the  southern  parts  of  Salem  County  were 
erected  into  a  separate  county  because  of  the  inconveni- 
ence to  the  inhabitants  of  living  at  a  distance  from  Salem 
Town,  the  county  seat.1  It  was  called  Cumberland,  in 
honor  of  the  then  popular  hero,  the  Duke  of  Cumber- 
land. This  new  division  had  all  the  liberties  and  priv- 
ileges of  any  other  county,  except  the  right  to  choose 
members  to  represent  them  in  the  General  Assembly. 

By  1753  the  inhabitants  of  the  newly  erected  Morris 
County  had  found  it  inconvenient  to  attend  the  courts  at 
Morristown,  in  consequence  of  which  the  new  county  of 
Sussex  was  established  by  act  of  June,  1753.2  The  free- 
holders were  to  join  with  Hunterdon  and  Morris  Coun- 
ties for  choosing  representatives.  Morris  and  Sussex 
were  to  unite  in  raising  taxes  until  it  was  otherwise 
ordered. 

It  was  but  natural  that  these  newly  erected  counties 
should  desire  separate  representation  in  the  provincial 
legislature.  As  if  by  a  preconcerted  plan,  all  three 
counties  petitioned  the  assembly  in  the  October  session 
of  1760  for  representation.3  The  petitions,  similar  in 
tone,  urged  that  the  privileges  of  the  other  counties  be 
granted  them,  and  cited  the  hardships  of  being  repre- 
sented by  persons  who  were  not  fully  cognizant  of  the 
circumstances  and  needs  of  their  constituents.  The  peti- 
tions were  at  this  session  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

Morris  County  petitioned  again  in  1768,  and  at  this 
session  an  act  was  passed,  May  10,  "for  choosing  Rep- 
resentatives in  the  Counties  of  Morris,  Cumberland  and 

^llinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  153.  tIdid.,  p.  194. 

8  Assembly  Journal ,  Oct.  and  Nov.,  1760. 


79]  THE  ASSEMBLY  yg 

Sussex ;  and  directing  the  Morris  County  Taxes  to  be 
paid  into  the  Eastern  Treasury." ■  Each  county  was  to 
have  two  representatives,  having  the  same  qualifications 
as  those  from  the  other  counties,  and  of  course  elected 
by  freeholders  with  the  same  qualifications  as  in  the 
other  counties.  The  provision  regarding  the  Morris 
County  taxes  was  made  necessary  because  that  county 
was  not  wholly  in  either  division  of  the  province.  The 
most  settled  parts  had  grown  up  in  the  Eastern  division. 
The  act  had  a  suspending  clause,  and  was  confirmed  in 
December,  1770.  In  his  speech  on  August  20,  1772,  at 
the  opening  of  the  session,  Governor  Franklin  felicitated 
the  assembly  upon  the  addition  to  their  numbers.2  This 
was  the  last  assembly  elected,  on  account  of  which 
neither  did  the  province  nor  the  three  counties  reap 
great  benefits  from  the  added  representation.  The  dis- 
advantage of  keeping  alive  the  distinction  between  East 
and  West  Jersey  is  apparent,  because  it  was  largely  the 
jealousy  between  the  two  sections  that  had  retarded  rep- 
resentation in  these  three  counties. 

The  same  assembly  that  passed  the  act  granting  repre- 
sentation to  Morris,  Cumberland  and  Sussex  counties 
also  passed  an  act  "for  the  septennial  Election  of  Rep- 
resentatives to  serve  in  the  General  Assembly."3  An 
unsuccessful  attempt  had  been  made  by  the  assembly  to 
have  a  simlar  bill  enacted  in  1740.  The  council  advised 
the  governor  to  assent  to  the  act,  inasmuch  as  a  sus- 
pending clause  had  been  added.4  The  assembly  urged 
the  agent  in  London  to  solicit  the  royal  assent,  but  the 
lords  of  trade  saw  no  reason  for  haste,  inasmuch  as  sep- 
tennial  elections   had   been  held  without  the  measure.5 

1  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  306. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  298.  3  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  306. 

*1V.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  508.  bIbid.t  vol.  x,  p.  142. 


80  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [80 

The  act  never  received  the  royal  approval.  In  1770  the 
Monmouth  County  representatives  had  received  instruc- 
tions from  their  constituents  for  leave  to  introduce  in  the 
assembly  a  bill  for  annual  elections.1  This  was  too  radi- 
cal for  the  assembly,  and  the  permission  was  denied  by 
a  substantial  majority. 

The  governors  frequently  found  it  difficult  to  obtain  a 
quorum,  and  in  some  cases  no  business  could  be  con- 
ducted for  days  after  a  session  had  been  called,  because 
of  the  necessity  of  waiting  for  a  quorum.  Three  was  the 
usual  number,  who  could  meet  and  adjourn,  but  the  at- 
tendance of  sixteen  or  eighteen  was  usually  required  for 
the  transaction  of  other  business.  In  1772  the  rule  was 
adopted  that  twenty  constituted  a  quorum  for  ordinary 
business,  and  twenty-four  when  money  was  to  be  raised. 
On  October  30,  1746,  when  sixteen  was  necessary  for  a 
quorum,  only  fifteen  could  be  corraled.  Thereupon  ad- 
journment was  taken  to  the  home  of  Mr.  Heard,  at 
Woodbridge,  where  he  was  sick.  Sixteen  being  then 
present,  the  resolution  was  passed  that  fifteen  should 
be  the  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business.  The 
house  then  adjourned  to  Perth  Amboy  and  passed  a 
necessary  act  for  supplying  the  New  Jersey  troops  in 
the  expedition  against  Canada.  On  October  18,  1747, 
when  the  legislature  stood  adjourned  to  the  seventeenth 
of  the  next  month,  important  business  having  arisen, 
Belcher  doubted  the  possibility  of  getting  a  quorum  to- 
gether before  the  fixed  date,  a  month  ahead.2 

The  assembly,  of  course,  made  other  rules  as  necessity 
required.  From  1744  a  committee  on  grievances  was 
appointed  at  the  beginning  of  each  session,  with  power 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  22,  1770. 
2 Belcher  Papers ,  Oct.  18,  1747. 


Si]  the  assembly  8i 

to  send  for  persons  and  records,  and  gather  whatever 
information  might  be  necessary  for  deciding  the  com- 
plaints and  other  matters  referred  to  it.1  It  was  unani- 
mously resolved,  in  October,  1769,  that  the  sessions 
should  be  public  and  all  who  wished  might  attend.2  An 
earlier  attempt  to  have  the  sessions  public  had  been 
voted  down.  The  assembly  never  tired  of  conforming 
to  the  custom  of  the  British  Parliament,  and  the  resolu- 
tion of  1769  was  passed  as  being  conformable  to  the 
custom  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  number  of 
private  bills,  such  as  naturalization  acts,  and  acts  relating 
to  private  meadows  and  marshes,  had  constantly  in- 
creased with  the  growth  of  the  province.  It  became 
absolutely  necessary  to  restrict  the  petitions  for  private 
matters  in  some  way.  A  resolution  was  passed  in  1772, 
that  petitions  for  private  bills  would  only  be  received 
within  the  first  ten  days  of  any  session.  This  was  of 
course  to  avert  the  threatened  danger  of  having  the  pub- 
lic business  impeded  because  of  the  multitude  of  private 
bills.  The  legislature  always  took  a  Christmas  recess. 
On  December  15,  1747,  Belcher  wrote  "it  has  been  their 
Custom  to  adjourn  for  a  frolick  about  this  Season." 3 

It  will  be  profitable  briefly  to  consider  the  personnel 
of  the  representative  branch  of  the  legislature  before  en- 
tering upon  an  account  of  the  course  of  legislation  dur- 
ing this  period.  Without  doubt  the  New  Jersey  assem- 
blies of  that  day  were  more  responsive  to  the  will  of  the 
people  than  are  those  of  our  own  time,  for  the  physical 
conditions  were  such  as  to  make  a  greater  degree  of 
responsibility  possible;  the  interests  at  stake  were  less 
diversified    and    less   extensive.      The    qualifications   for 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  5,  1744-  *  Ibid.,  Oct.  12,  1769. 

*  Belcher  Papers,  Dec.  15,  1747. 


82  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [82 

membership  insured  the  election  of  men  of  means  to  the 
assembly.  They  were  for  the  most  part  men  little  expe- 
rienced in  public  affairs,  for  whom  the  date  of  holding 
the  General  Assembly  was  ordinarily  arranged  whenever 
possible  so  as  not  to  conflict  with  their  private  concerns. 
Not  a  body  of  lawyers  was  the  colonial  assembly,  al- 
though some  of  the  ablest  of  that  profession  were  from 
time  to  time  members  of  the  lower  house. 

The  members  of  the  eleventh  assembly  elected  in  1738, 
were  Andrew  Johnston,  Lewis  Johnston,  James  Hude, 
Edward  Antill,  John  Eaton,  Cornelius  Vandervere,  Joseph 
Bonnell,  Josiah  Ogdeh,  George  Van  Este,  Peter  Dumont, 
Lawrence  Van  Buskirk  and  David  Demarest  from  East 
Jersey;  Richard  Smith,  Isaac  Pearson,  Mahlon  Stacy, 
William  Cook,  Joseph  Cooper,  John  Mickle,  William 
Hancock,  Joseph  Reeves,  Aaron  Learning,  Henry  Young, 
Benjamin  Smith  and  John  Embly  for  West  Jersey.  Those 
who  had  not  been  members  of  the  previous  assembly 
elected  in  1730,  were  Lewis  Johnston,  Antill,  Vandervere, 
Bonnell,  Ogden,  Demarest,  Cook,  Mickle,  Hancock, 
Reeves,  Benjamin  Smith  and  Embly.  A  decided  minority 
of  the  members  was  directly  interested  in  the  affairs  of 
the  proprietors.  Regarding  the  most  prominent  mem- 
bers a  few  facts  may  be  given. 

Joseph  Bonnell,  of  Essex  County,  was  chosen  speaker. 
His  name  frequently  appears  upon  committees  of  Eliza- 
bethtown  claimants  pressing  their  claims  against  the 
proprietors.  The  same  year  he  was  appointed  second 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  but  was  again  elected  to 
the  assembly  in  1743.1  The  representatives  from  Perth 
Amboy  were  the  two  brothers,  Andrew  and  Lewis 
Johnston,  the  former  of  whom  has  been  mentioned  as  a 

1  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  372. 


83]  THE  ASSEMBLY  83 

member  of  the  council.  Both  Andrew  and  Lewis  were 
for  many  years  influential  members  of  the  council  of 
East  Jersey  proprietors,  having  succeeded  to  the  exten- 
sive interests  of  their  father,  Dr.  John  Johnstone.1  Lewis 
became  a  physician  also,  having  received  his  education 
at  Leyden,  Holland,  and  served  the  community  ably  for 
many  years  until  his  death  in  1773.  Hude  and  Antill, 
from  Middlesex  County,  the  latter  a  proprietor,  later 
became  members  of  the  council.  Col.  Josiah  Ogden, 
now  serving  his  last  term  in  the  assembly,  was  the  father 
of  the  more  famous  David  Ogden. 

Four  of  the  representatives  from  West  Jersey,  Pearson, 
Cooper,  Stacy  and  Mickle,  were  prominent  members  of 
the  council  of  the  West  Jersey  proprietors.2  Doubtless 
the  most  influentiel  member  from  West  Jersey  was 
Richard  Smith,  one  of  the  wealthy  Smith  family  from 
Burlington,  and  father  of  Samuel  Smith,  the  historian. 
He  served  the  city  of  Burlington  in  the  assembly  con- 
tinuously from  1730  to  1748.  James  Alexander,  an  ex- 
cellent critic,  writing  to  Agent  Paris,  paid  a  splendid,  if 
unintended,  tribute  to  the  Burlington  representative. 
Alexander  mentioned  Belcher's  tendency  to  enter  into 
the  advice  of  Quakers  in  the  assembly,  especially  relying 
upon  Richard  Smith,  "  the  Man  of  the  best  Sense  and 
Interest  in  that  house;  and  if  he  keeps  his  advice,  I 
doubt  not,  he  will  make  himself,  and  the  Province  both 
happy  and  Easy."3  Cape  May  County  had  an  able  rep- 
resentative in  another  Quaker,  Aaron  Learning,  who 
after   having    been    bound    out    a    shoemaker  in    Long 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
P-  72. 

8  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  West  Jersey  Proprietors. 
1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  131. 


84  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [84 

Island,  decided  to  go  to  New  Jersey,  where,  in  1734,  he 
was  admitted  to  practice  law  in  the  Cape  May  courts.1 
He  was  a  member  of  the  assembly  from  1727  to  1744. 

Their  sins  of  omission  led  Morris  to  dissolve  the 
eleventh  assembly  after  but  one  session  was  held,  the 
twelfth  assembly  convening  in  1740.  Thomas  Farmer 
and  Thomas  Leonard  again  appear  in  the  assembly,  both 
having  served  in  earlier  legislatures.  Both  of  these  gen- 
tlemen have  been  referred  to  as  members  of  the  council. 
Aaron  Learning,  Jr.,  was  elected  to  the  assembly  from 
Cape  May  County,  which  at  this  session  entrusted  its 
assembly  delegation  to  members  of  the  Learning  family.2 
Indeed,  from  1727  to  1772,  there  was  always  a  Learning 
from  Cape  May  in  the  assembly,  save  for  one  year,  1744. 
At  this  time  a  young  Quaker  of  but  twenty-five,  he  was 
possessed  of  a  good  education  and  a  spirit  of  industry. 
He  was  a  large  landholder  in  West  Jersey.  Ability  and 
interest  brought  him  into  prominence  for  many  years. 
Together  with  his  colleague  in  the  assembly,  Jacob 
Spicer,  he  was  most  instrumental  in  compiling  the 
Grants  and  Concessions  of  East  and  West  Jersey  under 
the  lords  proprietors.  This  arduous  task  occupied  the 
attention  of  the  Cape  May  members  for  many  years. 
The  record  of  Learning's  votes  in  the  assembly  shows 
that  he  habitually  voted  negatively,  an  attitude  which 
was  likewise  somewhat  characteristic  of  his  friend  Spicer. 

The  thirteenth  assembly  was  elected  in  1743,  Andrew 
Johnston  being  chosen  speaker.  This  was  the  first  of 
the  annual  assemblies  of  the  end  of  the  Morris  admin- 
istration. The  East  Jersey  proprietary  interests  were 
strengthened  by  the  return  of  Samuel  Leonard  to  the 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xix,  p.  393,  note. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  393,  note;  Stevens,  History  of  Cape  May  County,  p.  100. 


85]  THE  ASSEMBLY  85 

assembly  from  Perth  Amboy,  and  the  election  of  Samuel 
Nevill.  Among  the  other  newly  elected  members  were 
Robert  Lawrence,  Joseph  Bonnell,  George  Vreeland, 
Derick  Van  Este  and  William  Mott.  Leonard  was  a 
prominent  East  Jersey  proprietor,  and  ardent  supporter 
of  Governor  Morris.  His  father  had  been  a  member  of 
Cornbury's  council.  Lawrence,  a  member  of  the  assem- 
bly from  1743  to  1 76 1,  during  part  of  which  time  he  was 
speaker,  sympathized  with  the  people  in  contests  with 
the  royal  executive  or  the  proprietors  of  the  land.1 
Although  Vreeland  was  one  of  the  representatives  from 
Essex  in  this  assembly,  he  later  removed  to  Bergen 
County,  representing  that  county  in  the  nineteenth  as- 
sembly. Changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  West  Jersey 
representation  were  neither  so  numerous  nor  so  im- 
portant as  in  East  Jersey. 

The  election  of  Samuel  Nevill  to  represent  Middlesex 
brought  to  the  lower  house  one  of  the  most  talented 
men  in  the  colony."  The  death  of  his  sister,  Mrs.  Peter 
Sonmans,  who  had  inherited  from  her  husband  extensive 
proprietary  interests  in  New  Jersey,  brought  Nevill  to 
America  in  1736.  Coming  into  possession  of  part  of  the 
Sonmans  estate,  he  settled  at  Perth  Amboy.  A  gentle- 
man of  marked  attainments  and  high  character,  his  rise 
to  eminence  in  the  province  was  rapid.  In  the  land  dis- 
putes, he  naturally  took  the  proprietary  viewpoint,  but 
favored  the  adoption  of  conciliatory  measures  against 
the  rioters.3  Although  Nevill  supported  the  unpopular 
side  in  the  land  disputes,  he  championed  the  assembly  in 

1  N.J.  A.,  vol.  xix,  p.  390. 

'/bid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  323;  vol.  xi,  p.  469;  Whitehead,  op.  cit. 
8 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  323.     See  Nevill's  speech  in  the  assembly  in 
answer  to  the  rioters'  petition,  1746. 


86  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [86 

the  protracted  contests  with  Governor  Morris.  Among 
the  public  offices  which  he  filled  with  ability  were  those 
of  speaker  of  the  assembly,  mayor  of  Perth  Amboy,  and 
second  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Before  coming  to 
America,  Nevill  had  been  editor  of  the  London  "  Morn- 
ing Post;"  while  in  this  country  he  distinguished  him- 
self as  editor  of  "The  New  American  Magazine,"  the 
second  periodical  published  in  America.1  A  compilation 
of  the  laws  of  New  Jersey  in  two  volumes  was  published 
by  him. 

The  refusal  of  the  assembly  to  amend  the  militia  act 
resulted  in  a  dissolution  and  the  election  of  the  four- 
teenth assembly  in  1744.  Robert  Hude  and  William 
Ouke  were  sent  from  Middlesex;  Samuel  Nevill  was  re- 
turned by  the  city  of  Perth  Amboy  in  the  place  of 
Andrew  Johnson  and  was  elected  speaker.  Both  Hude 
and  Ouke  were  staunch  supporters  of  Morris  in  the 
house.  The  only  other  new  member  from  the  East 
Jersey  counties  was  John  Crane  from  Essex,  who  had 
been  elected  to  succeed  Joseph  Bonnell.  From  Cape 
May  came  Henry  Young,  and  from  Hunterdon,  Daniel 
Doughty,  both  consistent  Morris  supporters.  The  other 
Cape  May  representative  was  Jacob  Spicer,  previously 
mentioned  as  engaged  with  Aaron  Learning  in  the  com- 
pilation and  publication  of  Learning  and  Spicer's  "  Grants 
and  Concessions  of  New  Jersey." 2  Spicer,  the  son  of  a 
former  assemblyman,  was  an  ambitious  and  wealthy  mer- 
chant. Elected  to  the  assembly  in  1746,  he  served  his 
county  in  the  lower  house  until  his  death  in  1765.  Sharp 
rivals  in  their  home  county,  Learning  and  Spicer  continu- 
ally acted  in  concert  when  representing  that  county  in 
the  legislature. 

1  Copies  of  this  old  magazine  are  in  the  Penn.  Hist.  Soc.  Library. 
lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xix,  p.  393;  Stevens,  op.  tit.,  p.  106. 


g7]  THE  ASSEMBLY  87 

Experience  proved  that  the  former  election  had  in 
nowise  altered  the  complexion  of  the  assembly  better  to 
suit  the  needs  and  desires  of  the  governor.  Conse- 
quently another  election  was  held  in  1745.  Changes  in 
the  membership  did  not  produce  the  altered  conduct 
which  the  governor  so  earnestly  desired.  Pontius  Stelle, 
John  Heard  and  John  Moores  were  among  the  new  mem- 
bers from  East  Jersey  favorably  disposed  to  Morris. 
John  Low  was  again  sent  from  Essex  after  an  absence 
of  two  years.  The  name  of  Hendrick  Fisher  first  ap- 
pears in  the  list  of  representatives  in  this  assembly. 
Somerset  County  had  chosen  him  for  the  assembly  in 
1740,  but  he  was  expelled  from  the  house  because  his 
election  had  followed  too  closely  upon  his  naturalization.1 
Taking  his  seat  in  1745  he  continued  to  represent  his 
county  in  the  assembly  until  the  end  of  the  royal  period. 
He  had  come  to  America  from  the  Palatinate  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  became  actively  identified 
with  the  Dutch  Church  near  Bound  Brook.  By  his  con- 
duct in  the  assembly,  Fisher  showed  the  ability  to  think 
independently  and  act  without  considering  the  popu- 
larity of  his  conduct.  During  his  service  in  the  assembly 
he  was  appointed  to  membership  upon  several  important 
committees  of  the  house.  Fisher  was  president  of  the 
May  session  of  the  first  New  Jersey  Provincial  Congress 
in  1775,  and  was  also  a  member  of  the  Provincial  Com- 
mittee of  Safety.  Among  the  five  newly  elected  mem- 
bers from  West  Jersey  was  Aaron  Learning,  who  had 
not  been  returned  to  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
assemblies. 

The  contest  between  Morris  and  the  assembly  was  waged 
as  fiercely  as  ever  in  1745,  and  the  governor  again  sought  to 

1  Assembly  Journal,  April  10,  1740;  Morris  Papers,  p.  85,  note. 


88  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [88 

strengthen  his  position  by  an  election.  The  sixteenth  as- 
sembly met  in  February,  1746,  but  the  personnel  was  altered 
in  only  two  cases.  Middlesex  sent  Philip  Kearney  instead 
of  Moores,  while  Hunterdon  returned  John  Embly  to  suc- 
ceed Daniel  Doughty.  Kearney  was  an  eminent  lawyer  of 
that  time.     This  was  the  last  election  under  Morris. 

Dissatisfied  with  the  attitude  taken  by  the  assembly  in 
regard  to  the  land  riots  and  counterfeiters,  Governor  Belcher 
dissolved  the  sixteenth  assembly.  The  newly-elected  house, 
however,  which  met  in  February,  1749,  proved  to  be  no 
more  tractable.  Among  the  new  members  were  John  Weth- 
erill  from  Middlesex,  Derick  Dey  from  Bergen  and  James 
Hinchman  from  Gloucester.  Of  these  Wetherill  deserves 
notice.  He  continued  a  member  of  the  assembly  during  the 
remainder  of  the  colonial  period,  engaging  actively  in  the 
public  affairs  of  the  colony.  In  1774  Wetherill  was  ap- 
pointed upon  the  Standing  Committee  of  Correspondence 
and  Inquiry  of  the  colony  and  was  also  a  member  of  the  pro- 
vincial congress  during  the  next  two  years. 

The  sessions  of  the  seventeenth  assembly  found  the  coun- 
cil and  assembly  in  violent  contest  over  the  act  to  settle  the 
quotas  of  taxes  upon  the  different  counties.  Convinced 
that  an  agreement  was  impossible,  Governor  Belcher 
ordered  the  election  of  a  new  legislature  in  February, 
1 75 1.  John  Johnston,  the  grandson  of  Dr.  John  John- 
stone, of  Perth  Amboy,  was  one  of  the  new  East  Jersey 
delegates.1  He  continued  to  serve  in  the  legislature  until 
he  was  commissioned  colonel  of  the  provincial  troops  sent 
to  Canada  in  1758.  After  his  death  at  Ticonderoga  in 
July  of  that  year,  Andrew  Smyth,  a  Perth  Amboy  surro- 
gate, filled  his  seat  in  the  house.  John  Stevens  appeared  as 
the  other  representative  from  Perth  Amboy  at  this  session 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xix,  p.  389. 


89]  .  THE  ASSEMBLY  89 

and  continued  an  active  and  useful  assemblyman  until  sum- 
moned to  the  upper  house  in  1763.1  Essex  County  was 
represented  by  John  Low  and  Robert  Ogden.  The  latter 
was  chosen  speaker  in  1763,  but  was  forced  to  resign  his 
seat  in  the  assembly,  because  of  his  refusal  to  sign  the  ad- 
dresses prepared  by  the  New  York  Stamp  Act  Congress.' 
Many  of  the  East  Jersey  towns  burned  him  in  effigy. 

The  West  Jersey  representatives  sent  to  the  assembly 
for  the  first  time  were  Charles  Read,  John  Deacon,  Barzillai 
Newbold,  William  Mickle  and  Joseph  Ellis.  Read,  to  whom 
reference  has  been  made  as  a  councillor  and  justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  was  elected  speaker.3  He  continued  to 
represent  the  city  of  Burlington  in  the  assembly  until  called 
to  the  council  in  1758.  Mickle  and  Ellis,  like  Read,  were 
interested  in  West  Jersey  proprietary  affairs. 

The  former  assembly  having  been  dissolved,  because  of 
its  refusal  to  provide  for  sending  commissioners  to  the  Al- 
bany Conference  of  1754,  the  nineteenth  assembly  met  in 
October  of  that  year.  Robert  Lawrence  was  chosen  speaker. 
Of  the  new  members  the  most  prominent  were  from  West 
Jersey.  Samuel  Smith,  the  historian,  began  his  career  as  an 
assemblyman  at  this  time,  continuing  in  the  lower  house 
until  his  appointment  to  the  council  in  1767.  Gloucester 
sent  John  Ladd,  who  was  then  vice-president  of  the  West 
Jersey  council  of  proprietors,  and  was  later  elevated  to  the 
council.  Samuel  Clement  and  Ebenezer  Miller,  both  con- 
sistent Quakers,  were  also  prominent  West  Jersey  pro- 
prietors and  members  of  this  house. 

A  new  election  for  representatives  was  not  held  until  early 
in  1 76 1,  when,  apparently  in  response  to  a  request  from  the 
assemblymen,  Governor  Boone  ordered  the  election  of  the 
twentieth  assembly.     East  Jersey  was   represented  by  an 

XN.  J.  A.t  vol.  ix,  p.  335.        *Ibid.,  p.  525-        *Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  426. 


90  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [90 

unusually  large  number  of  influential  citizens  in  this  assem> 
bly,  among  them  Stevens,  Nevill,  Wetherill,  Richard  Law- 
rence, Robert  and  John  Ogden  and  Fisher.  Richard  Law- 
rence, a  member  of  the  prominent  family  of  that  name  in 
Monmouth  County,  succeeded  to  the  seat  of  Robert  Law- 
rence. He  was  also  a  friend  of  the  liberties  and  privileges 
of  the  people.1  John  Ogden  had  served  from  Essex  during 
part  of  the  previous  assembly,  continuing  in  the  house  until 
1772.  Upon  the  resignation  of  Robert  Ogden,  Stephen 
Crane  was  elected  to  the  lower  house,  retaining  his  mem- 
bership in  that  body  for  the  remainder  of  the  colonial  period. 
He  was  speaker  in  1771  and  1772.  One  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Elizabethtown  claimants  against  the  proprietors,  he  was 
also  an  ardent  patriot  during  the  revolution.  He  was  one 
of  "  the  two  Elizabeth  Town  Ambassadors  "  appointed  by 
his  fellow  townsmen  to  carry  a  protest  against  the  pro- 
prietors to  the  king.2  Among  the  other  positions  of  trust 
which  he  filled  were  those  of  county  judge,  county  high 
sheriff,  and  delegate  to  the  Philadelphia  Continental  Con- 
gress. He  was  known  as  a  man  of  unusual  integrity  and 
courage.3 

Numbered  among  the  West  Jersey  representatives  were 
Samuel  Smith,  John  Lawrence,  Joseph  Borden,  David 
Cooper,  George  Reading,  Learning  and  Spicer.  The  va- 
cancy caused  by  Samuel  Smith's  removal  to  the  upper 
house  was  filled  by  Thomas  Rodman,  who  held  office  in  the 
council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors.  Burlington  city's  other 
representative  was  the  same  Lawrence  who  was  appointed 
to  the  council  in  1771.4  The  other  new  West  Jersey  mem- 
bers were  of  no  especial  prominence. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  459. 

1  Matthias  Hatfield  was  the  other.    N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  651. 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth.  4N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  302. 


9 1  ]  THE  ASSEMBLY  g  i 

To  the  twenty-first  assembly  which  met  in  October,  1769, 
Cortland  Skinner  and  John  L.  Johnson  were  sent  as  the 
representatives  of  the  city  of  Perth  Amboy.  The  former 
gentleman  had  been  elected  to  complete  the  unexpired  term, 
in  the  twentieth  assembly,  of  Andrew  Smyth,  deceased. 
Skinner's  election  as  speaker,  which  position  he  held,  ex- 
cept during  Crane's  incumbency,  until  the  overthrow  of 
royal  rule,  first  occurred  in  November,  1765.  An  influential 
member  of  the  council  of  East  Jersey  proprietors,  attor- 
ney general  of  the  province  for  many  years  until  the  Revo- 
lution and  an  eminent  lawyer,  Skinner  was  a  man  of  au- 
thority in  the  colony.  Johnson  was  a  Perth  Amboy  mer- 
chant, East  Jersey  proprietor,  the  son  of  Andrew,  who  had 
been  a  member  of  the  council,  and  treasurer  of  the  eastern 
division  of  the  province.1  Monmouth  was  represented  by 
Robert  Hartshorne  and  Edward  Taylor,  the  former  a  de- 
scendant of  Richard  Hartshorne,  one  of  the  original  twenty- 
four  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  named  in  the  Duke  of  York's 
grant  of  1682.2  Somerset  County  sent  Fisher  and  Berrien. 
Fisher  mistakenly  believed  that  this  would  be  his  last  elec- 
tion to  the  assembly.8  The  other  gentleman  was  the  same 
who  was  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  trustee  of 
Princeton  College.4 

From  the  city  of  Burlington  came  Abraham  Hewlings, 
then  president  of  the  council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors, 
while  old  Gloucester  sent  John  Hinchman,  the  then  vice- 
president  of  that  proprietary  board.5  The  other  member 
from  Gloucester  County  was  Robert  Friend  Price,  regarded 
as  a  friend  of  the  people  in  the  assembly.6    Another  Quaker 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  68.  * N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xx,  p.  150. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  209.  4 Ibid.,  p.  208. 

5 Minutes  of  the  Council  of  N.  J.  Prop.,  1767-1768. 
•Af.  J.  A.,  vol.  xx,  p.  154. 


92  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [92 

proprietor  from  West  Jersey  among  the  new  members  was 
Isaac  Sharp,  a  Salem  County  judge  and  founder  of  the 
"  Sharpsborough  Iron  Works."  * 

The  representatives  from  Hunterdon  County,  John  Hart 
and  Samuel  Tucker,  deserve  particular  mention.  Without 
having  even  the  educational  advantages  afforded  in  that 
day,  by  dint  of  his  own  ability,  Hart  rose  to  positions  of 
prominence  in  public  affairs.2  A  champion  of  the  privileges 
of  the  people  he  was  a  prominent  member  of  two  assem- 
blies, having  been  elected  for  the  first  time  in  1761.  This 
staunch  Presbyterian  rendered  eminent  services  to  the  patriot 
cause  during  the  Revolution.  Committees  of  correspondence 
and  safety,  congresses,  provincial  and  continental,  included 
John  Hart  in  their  membership.  He  was  one  of  the  signers 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Elected  to  the  assem- 
bly under  the  state  constitution  in  1776,  he  was  the  first 
speaker  of  that  body,  retaining  that  position  until  his  re- 
tirement from  public  life. 

A  successful  merchant  of  Trenton  and  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  Samuel  Tucker  was  elected  to>  the  assembly  in  1769 
and  1772.3  It  was  he,  who,  attempting  to  reform  legal  prac- 
tise in  the  colony,  had  the  light  of  publicity  turned  upon  his 
own  misdeeds,  the  acceptance  of  excessive  fees.  However 
untimely  and  inconvenient,  this  exposure  did  not  appear  to 
materially  lessen  his  influence.  An  active  patriot,  and  a 
man  of  no  mediocrity,  Tucker  was  a  valuable  member  of 
the  New  Jersey  provincial  congresses,  acting  as  president 
in  October,  1775,  and  June,  1776.  Stigma  attaching  to  his 
conduct  as  treasurer  of  New  Jersey,  when  the  state  chest 
of  valuables  was  captured  by  the  British  in  December,  1776, 
forced  him  to  retire  from  public  life. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  07;  vol.  xxvii,  p.  72. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  369.  zIdid.,  vol.  x,  p.  270. 


93]  THE  ASSEMBLY  93 

Refusing  barrack  supplies  for  the  royal  troops,  the  as- 
sembly was  dissolved  in  December,  1771.  The  twenty-sec- 
ond and  last  assembly  to  be  elected  under  royal  authority 
met  August  19,  1772.  There  appeared  at  this  session  the 
first  representatives  to  be  elected  from  Morris,  Cumberland 
and  Sussex  Counties.  One  of  the  Morris  County  represen- 
tatives was  William  Winds,  who  was  commissioned  in  1776 
to  arrest  Governor  Franklin,  in  accordance  with  an  order 
of  the  Continental  Congress.  During  the  Revolution  he 
proved  himself  to  be  a  zealous  and  efficient  officer.1  Jacob 
Ford,  of  Morristown,  was  the  other  representative  from 
Morris  County.  He  was  one  of  the  pioneer  iron  merchants 
of  New  Jersey  and  a  county  judge  from  the  organization  of 
Morris  County  in  1740  almost  until  his  decease.2  Other 
new  members  from  the  eastern  division  were  John  Coombs, 
John  Moores  and  Henry  Garriste. 

Cumberland  County  elected  John  Shepherd  and  The- 
ophilus  Elmer;  Sussex  County,  Thomas  Van  Home  and 
Nathaniel  Pettit.  One  of  the  most  distinguished  members 
of  this  legislature  was  the  Quaker  James  Kinsey,  of  Bur- 
lington, son  of  John  Kinsey  a  former  speaker  of  the  New 
Jersey  assembly.8  In  leading  the  opposition  to  Governor 
Franklin  upon  the  question  of  treasurer  Skinner's  respon- 
sibility in  the  treasury  robbery,  later  to  be  mentioned,  the 
abilities  of  the  younger  Kinsey  were  displayed  to  great  ad- 
vantage. Elected  as  a  delegate  to  the  Continental  Congress 
of  September,  1774,  he  later  resigned  the  appointment. 
From  1789  to  1803  he  was  chief  justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  New  Jersey.  Kinsey' s  colleague  from  the  city  of 
Burlington  was  Thomas  P.  Hewlings. 

1  N.  J.  A.  (Second  Series),  vol.  i,  p.  321. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  xii,  p.  665. 

*  Elmer,  Reminiscences  of  New  Jersey,  p.  275  et  seq. 


94  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [94 

Even  this  necessarily  cursory  sketch  of  the  activities  of 
the  most  prominent  assemblymen  convinces  the  student 
that  men  of  capacity  and  ability  were  included  among  the 
ranks  of  the  colonial  lower  house.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  indisputable  that  many  of  the  would-be  legislators  were 
ill-accomplished,  uneducated  farmers,  who  perhaps  felt 
better  at  ease  guiding  the  plow  through  the  furrow  than 
legislating  for  their  country's  good.  Morris,  with  no  in- 
tention to  compliment,  alluded  to  the  assemblymen  as 
"  ploughmen  representatives,"  *  but  he  was  not  alone  among 
royal  governors  in  experiencing  a  setback  at  their  hands. 
In  each  assembly,  personal  leaders  appeared,  men  of  prestige 
and  zeal,  to  whom  particular  credit  was  due  for  bringing 
things  to  pass. 

It  has  been  observed  that  the  re-election  of  members  to 
successive  assemblies  was  of  frequent,  if  not  usual,  occur- 
rence. This  does  not  necessarily  indicate  that  the  elec- 
tions were  placid  formalities.  The  polls  were  open  for  suc- 
cessive days,  until  a  choice  was  made.  The  Somerset 
County  election  of  1768  is  described  as  having  been  "carried 
on  with  the  greatest  coolness  and  good  order;  no  reflecting 
or  abusive  words  were  heard  during  the  whole  election."  2 
By  inference,  it  might  be  supposed  that  reflecting  and  abusive 
words  were  not  foreign  to  such  occasions.  There  is  a  re- 
port, the  authenticity  of  which  is  not  guaranteed  however, 
of  an  unusually  exciting  election  in  Hunterdon  for  repre- 
sentatives in  1772.3  The  race  for  public  honor  was  between 
Tucker  and  Hart,  the  former  gaining  the  victory  on  the 
third  day  after  a  generous  body  of  Episcopalians  had  been 
induced  to  cast  their  votes  for  Tucker  in  opposition  to  the 

1  Morris  Papers,  p,  276. 
*N.  J.  A.y  vol.  xxvi,  p.  209. 
•Sedgwick,  Life  of  Livingston,  p.  143. 


95]  THE  ASSEMBLY  95 

Presbyterian  candidate.  The  election  of  members  to  the 
eighteenth  assembly,  after  the  dissolution  of  the  previous 
house  due  to  the  disagreement  upon  the  quotas  act,  caused 
animated  discussion.  The  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
weeklies  contained  earnest  articles  upon  the  approaching 
election.1  In  August,  1754,  "  the  greatest  Struggles  in  elect- 
ing Representatives  in  some  of  the  Counties,  that  ever  were 
known,"  were  reported  by  the  "  New  York  Gazette."  " 
Middlesex  and  Hunterdon  Counties  required  four  days  to 
conclude  the  election;  while  in  Somerset  there  were  six 
candidates  and  it  was  necessary  for  the  "  Gazette  "  to  go  to 
press  before  the  returns  were  received. 

An  agent  representing  the  province  at  the  court  in  Eng- 
land was  a  well-established  institution  in  New  Jersey  in 
1738.  Communication  between  the  two  continents  was  so 
irregular  and  uncertain,  that  the  necessity  of  maintaining  an 
active  agent  in  London  had  become  recognized.  Whereas 
the  desire  of  the  royal  authorities  was  that  such  an  officer 
should  represent  the  entire  provincial  government,  that  offi- 
cial became  a  representative  of  the  assembly  alone.  Com- 
plaints against  this  assumption  of  power  were  no  less 
frequent  than  vehement,  but  the  fact  of  the  agent's  respon- 
sibility to  the  lower  house  continued  and  the  representa- 
tives referred  in  documents  to  "  their  agent  at  Great 
Britain."8 

The  method  by  which  the  agent  was  made  responsible 
to  the  assembly  was  through  that  body's  control  of  the 
public  purse.  In  the  salary  appropriation  the  recipient  was 
expressly  designated  and  hence  virtually  appointed,  for 
the  right  of  the  council  to  alter  or  amend  a  money  bill  was 
successfully  opposed.     One  of  the  objections  urged  by  the 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xix,  pp.  34,  48,  53.  Wind.,  p.  382. 

•  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  22,  1750. 


96  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [96 

council  in  1749  against  the  government  support  act  was, 
that  to  allow  the  assembly  the  sole  nomination  of  an  agent 
paid  by  public  money,  required  an  application  to  the  king 
by  the  council  to  be  made  at  a  private  charge.1  Against 
such  an  unreasonable  arrangement  the  upper  house  com- 
plained, but  in  vain.  When  reproached  by  the  governor  for 
wasting  time  in  disputes,  he  is  informed  by  the  assembly 
that  the  councillors  were  at  fault  for  they  "  tried  to  encroach 
on  the  constitution  by  altering  a  money  bill,  so  that  the 
House  would  be  deprived  of  the  appointment  o«f  their 
Agent."  2 

In  1769  the  lords  of  trade  indirectly  owned  that  the 
colonial  agent  was  an  officer  of  the  assembly  only.  The 
clause  in  the  support  act  appointing  the  agent  "  for  the 
Province  at  the  Court  of  Great  Britain  "  was  harshly  criti- 
cized as  "  a  ridiculous  Affectation  in  the  Assembly  to  cloath 
an  Officer,  who  is  merely  an  Attorney  to  transact  their  Af- 
fairs, independent  of  the  general  Interests  of  the  Colony, 
with  a  character  that  belongs  only  to  the  Minister  of  a 
Foreign  Prince."  3  The  lords  accepted  agents  responsible 
only  to  the  assembly,  but  they  did  this  unwillingly.  June 
21,  1 77 1,  Governor  Franklin  was  ordered  by  the  lords  of 
trade  to  refuse  his  assent  in  future  to  any  support  bill  which 
carried  with  it  the  implication  of  the  assembly's  right  solely 
to  appoint  the  colonial  agent.4  The  lords  would  now  permit 
no  colonial  agent  to  appear  before  them  who  was  not  ap- 
pointed by  a  concurrent  act  of  the  whole  legislature.  The 
governor  doubted  that  the  assembly  would  recede  from 
their  claim,  which  he  believed  had  "  been  long  acquiesced 
with   in   this   Province   as   well   as   in  most   other  of   His 

1  N,  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  196. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  22,  1750. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  445.  KIbid.,  vol.  x,  p.  301. 


97 J  THE  ASSEMBLY  gy 

Majesty's  Colonies  in  North  America,"  but  he  sought  to 
convert  the  lower  house  to  the  official  viewpoint.1  Much 
persuasion  and  many  private  interviews  with  the  represen- 
tatives rewarded  Franklin's  efforts,  for  in  the  support  act 
of  1 771,  the  assembly  consented  to  the  omission  of  those 
words  in  the  bill  which  seemed  to  establish  their  claim  to 
the  complete  control  of  the  provincial  agent. 

The  agreement  was  more  formal  than  essential  and  ef- 
fected no  change  in  the  agency.  "  That  Doctor  Benjamin 
Franklin  be  and  he  is  hereby  appointed  Agent  for  transact- 
ing the  affairs  of  this  Colony  in  Great  Britain  "  was  a  re- 
solve of  the  council  on  December  II,  1771.2  It  merely 
ratified  the  appointment  of  the  man,  with  whom  a  com- 
mittee of  the  assembly  had  been  corresponding  as  colonial 
agent  for  two  years.8  Strict  compliance  with  the  regulation 
of  the  lords  of  trade  was  made,  when  the  governor  con- 
curred with  the  council  and  assembly  resolves  appointing 
his  father  agent.4  When  the  next  agent  was  appointed,  in 
November,  1775,  however,  there  is  no  record  that  a  similar 
formal  concurrence  of  the  governor  and  council  with  the 
assembly  was  given. 

Benjamin  Franklin  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  agents  by  concurrent  action  of  the  whole  legis- 
lature.5 Evidently  believing  that  the  ministerial  scheme 
required  the  passage  of  a  separate  legislative  act,  he  thought 
this  device  granted  the  royal  officials  effectual  power  to  con- 
trol the  agents  by  a  repeal  of  the  appointing  act.  That  the 
new  resolution  of  the  Board  of  Trade  would  operate  to 
render  the  agents  subservient  to  the  Secretary  of  State  was 
the  elder  Franklin's  contention.     He  declared  the  deter- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  315. 

*  /did.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  235.  %  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  135. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  271.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  330. 


98  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [98 

mination  to  decline  serving  as  a  provincial  agent  under 
any  such  uncertain  appointment.  Fortunately  for  the  colony 
Benjamin  Franklin  did  not  adopt  this  extreme  course,  but 
retained  the  New  Jersey  agency  until  1775. 

Not  only  was  the  agent  in  effect  appointed  by  the  assem- 
bly, but  he  advised  and  kept  in  touch  with  the  affairs  of  the 
province  by  a  committee  of  correspondence  of  that  house. 
This  committee,  ordinarily  numbering  four  or  five,  of  whom 
the  speaker  was  one,  was  authorized  to  correspond  with  the 
agent,  and  transmit  to  him  the  assembly  minutes.1  Thus 
the  representative  at  the  court  was  constantly  given  official 
notification  of  the  conduct  of  affairs  in  the  colony  and  es- 
pecially from  the  assembly  viewpoint.  In  1738  the  lower 
house  ordered  that  two  books  should  be  provided,  one  for 
East  Jersey  and  one  for  West  Jersey,  wherein  all  letters 
sent  to  and  received  from  the  London  agent  in  relation  to 
the  affairs  of  the  province  should  be  entered.2  The  cus- 
todian of  these  important  volumes  was  not  announced, 
although  they  might  naturally  be  supposed  to  have  been 
intrusted  to  the  committee  of  correspondence. 

The  first  agent  appointed  for  the  province  was  Peter 
La  Heupe,  who  having  held  the  post  for  about  four  years 
was  succeeded  in  1727  by  Richard  Partridge,  a  Quaker  of 
not  exceptional  ability.3     He  was  Belcher's  brother-in-law 
and  active  agent  during  that  governor's  administration  in 
New  Jersey.     The  East  Jersey  proprietors  were  not  well 
disposed  toward  Partridge,  suspecting  him  of  encouraging 
the  people  in  the  land  troubles,  and  his  management  of  funds 
entrusted  to  him  evoked  bitter  criticism.     Belcher  was  con- 
dor the  business  of  the  assembly  in  connection  with  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  agent,  see  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  17,  1742. 
2  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  SI,  1738. 
8  Tanner,  op.  tit.,  p.  375  et  seq. 


99]  THE  ASSEMBLY  99 

stantly  admonishing  him  to  have  no  connections  with  the 
anti-proprietary  rioters,  lest  he  lose  influence  with  the  min- 
istry.1 And  in  1752  powerful  enemies  in  England  tem- 
porarily prevented  his  having  access  to  the  king's  ministers 
or  public  officers.2  October  22,  1751,  the  council  declared 
that  some  other  person  should  be  appointed,  and  by  legis- 
lative act,3  but  Partridge  retained  the  New  Jersey  agency 
until  the  end  of  1760. 

On  November  19,  1760,  the  assembly  resolved  that  Joseph 
Sherwood,  a  London  attorney-at-law,  should  be  appointed 
provincial  agent,  and  there  was  designated  a  committee  to 
correspond  with  him.4  He  may  have  received  the  position 
through  the  good  offices  of  Samuel  Smith,  the  treasurer.5 
In  1766  the  influence  of  Lord  Stirling  secured  the  appoint- 
ment of  Henry  Wilmot,  and  Sherwood  was  ordered  to 
transmit  his  accounts  to  the  assembly.6  These  accounts 
were  not  laid  before  that  house  until  1770,  when  the  former 
agent's  request  for  an  allowance  of  £43  was  unanimously 
rejected.7  No  charge  of  misconduct  had  been  made  against 
Sherwood,  who  himself  expressed  the  desire  "  to  know  how 
the  Revolution  came  about."  8 

Wilmot  was  an  eminent  solicitor  and  secretary  to  the 
Lord  Chancellor.  He  was  apparently  careful  of  the  inter- 
ests of  the  colony,  but  was  continued  in  the  office  for  but 
three  years,  being  superseded  by  the  appointment  of  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  in  1769.0    The  committee  of  correspondence 

1  Belcher  Papers ,  Dec.  6,  1751.  rIbid.,  Aug.  28,  1752. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  342.         *  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  19,  1760. 
*  Sherwood  Letters ,  Mar.  14,  1761;  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceedings,  vol. 
v,  p.  133. 

6 Assembly  Journal,  June  18,  1766.  ''Ibid.,  Oct.  26,  1770. 

8  Sherwood  Letters ,  Aug.  21,  1766,  op.  cit. 

9  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  8,  1769. 


IOO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [i00 

did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  press  upon  the  newly-appointed 
agent  the  matter  of  diligence,  because  he  had  been  found 
inclined  to  the  American  service.1  The  last  provincial 
agent,  appointed  in  November,  1775,  was  Dennis  De  Berdt, 
the  father-in-law  of  Deputy  Secretary  Reed.  Governor 
Franklin  believed  his  appointment  resulted  chiefly  from  his 
diligence  in  obtaining  for  the  New  Jersey  assembly  the  con- 
tents of  a  letter  sent  by  the  governor  to  the  Earl  of  Dart- 
mouth.* 

12V.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceedings,  vol.  x,  p.  168. 
VA.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  681. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Legislative  History — The  Morris  Administration 

Many  of  the  constitutional  conflicts,  which  a  study  of 
the  history  of  legislation  in  the  province  reveals,  were  not 
peculiar  to  New  Jersey  alone.  The  constant  struggles  over 
the  support  of  government  and  the  paper  money  issue  were 
common  to  the  other  English  colonies  in  America,  and  the 
case  of  one  is  typical  of  the  others.  Thrown  upon  their 
own  resources,  and  left  to  solve  problems  with  an  almost 
free  hand,  the  colonists  had  naturally  profited  by  the  negli- 
gence of  the  crown  officials,  and  the  great  distance  from  the 
mother  country.  The  royal  executives  became  objects  of 
suspicion,  representatives  of  an  external  authority,  against 
whose  encroachments,  fancied  or  otherwise,  they  must  con- 
stantly be  on  their  guard.  As  to  what  constituted  an  en- 
croachment, a  violation  of  a  cherished  liberty  of  the  people, 
there  was  much  room  for  a  difference  of  opinion,  because 
the  relation  between  the  realm  and  the  dominions  had  never 
been  exactly  defined.1  The  unsympathetic  relations  that 
usually  existed  between  the  branches  of  government  were 
manifestly  not  conducive  to  harmony.  The  assembly  evi- 
dently had  an  insatiable  love  of  power,  and  encroached  upon 
the  other  departments  as  much  as  possible.  Such  invasions 
of  the  prerogative  of  the  governor;  council,  or  courts,  was 
protested  against,  but  usually  acquiesced  in  lest  the  necessi- 

1  See  Osgood,  The  American  Colonies  in  the  17th  Century,  vol.  iii, 
chap.  i. 

101]  101 


102  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [102 

ties  of  the  public  service  should  be  hampered.  Notwith- 
standing frequent  and  earnest  protests  on  the  part  of  the 
royal  officials,  both  in  England  and  America,  the  assem- 
blies practically  forced  the  governor  and  council  to  comply 
with  what  they  pleased  to  direct.  To  gain  this  point,  with- 
holding the  funds  for  the  support  of  the  civil  establishment 
was  a  big  stick,  of  which  the  assembly  made  frequent  use. 
This  was  a  cudgel  of  the  assembly  alone,  for  they  main- 
tained, and  made  good  their  claim,  that  the  council  could 
neither  amend  nor  alter  money  bills.  As  the  council  in  most 
of  the  colonies  was  composed  of  royal  appointees,  selected 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  governor,  and  consequently 
dependent  upon  him,  the  assembly  and  council  were  in  fre- 
quent conflict.  The  particular  reasons  for  the  contests  be- 
tween the  two  houses  in  New  Jersey  will  presently  be  noted. 
It  was  unusual,  but  not  unknown,  for  the  governor  and 
council  to  be  at  odds.  From  what  has  been  said,  some  of 
the  fundamental  defects  of  the  system  of  government  that 
prevailed  in  the  colonies  are  evident,  and  it  is  apparent  that 
they  were  magnified  by  the  negligence  of  the  home  author- 
ities, the  remoteness  of  the  dominions  from  the  realm,  and 
the  naturally  acquired  love  of  power  in  the  assemblies. 

There  were  particular  conditions  in  the  different  colonies 
that  encouraged  a  more  or  less  bitter  spirit  of  rivalry  and 
conflict  in  the  legislative  sessions.  Chief  among  these  in 
New  Jersey  may  be  mentioned  the  land  system,  Quakerism, 
and  the  place  for  the  meeting  of  the  legislature.  That  the 
first  of  these  should  have  been  an  added  cause  of  controversy 
in  this  province  was  due  to  the  fact  that  after  1702  titles  to 
land  were  vested  in  private  landowners  and  not  in  the  gov- 
erning power  of  the  province,  and  that  the  proprietary  title 
to  large  tracts  of  land  was  actively  disputed.  The  majority 
of  the  people  viewed  the  proprietors  as  a  wealthy,  landed 
aristocracy  wielding  an  undue  and  selfish  influence  in  the 


I03]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  103 

affairs  of  the  province.  Their  gain  was  improperly  re- 
garded as  the  people's  loss.  As  the  strength  of  the  pro- 
prietors was  in  the  council  and  that  of  the  people  in  the  as- 
sembly, an  almost  constant  strife  between  the  two  bodies 
was  not  unnatural.  It  was  this  influence  more  than  any 
other  that  lent  zest  to  the  relations  between  the  council  and 
assembly  of  New  Jersey,  and  made  it  unusually  difficult  for 
the  two  houses  to  "  keep  sweet  between  themselves,"  as 
Belcher  put  it.  Under  the  circumstances  it  is  apparent  that 
the  attitude  of  the  governor  toward  the  proprietors  was  im- 
portant. This  was  also  true  of  what  may  be  called  Quaker- 
ism. Members  of  that  sect  constituted  a  large  number  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  province,  the  great  majority  in  West 
Jersey.  It  was  in  their  opposition  to  war  and  military  ser- 
vice that  their  attitude  was  a  matter  of  public  importance. 
Orthodox  Friends  believed  in  the  unlawfulness  of  war,  and 
whenever  it  became  necessary  to  raise  troops  or  regulate  the 
militia,  their  presence  in  official  positions  was  regarded  by 
many  as  a  detriment  to  the  public  service.  Frequent  com- 
plaints were  made  to  the  royal  officials,  especially  by  Gov- 
ernor Morris,  that  the  obstinacy  of  the  Quakers  prevented 
the  enactment  of  necessary  laws  for  establishing  the  militia 
upon  a  proper  footing  for  the  defense  of  the  province.  The 
Quaker  element  was  much  stronger  in  the  assembly  than  in 
the  council.  The  third  condition  mentioned  as  productive 
of  strife  was  the  determination  of  the  place  for  holding  the 
legislative  sessions.  This  has  been  considered  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  and  the  mere  mention  of  it  is  necessary  here. 
Holding  alternate  sessions  of  the  legislature  at  Burlington 
and  Perth  Amboy  was  expensive  and  inconvenient,  but  the 
assembly  could  not  be  persuaded  to  alter  the  system.  In 
•itself  the  place  of  meeting  was  not  of  serious  consequence, 
but  it  was  frequently  made  an  issue  for  opposing  the  gov- 
ernor, when  he  attempted  to  deviate  from  the  regular  alter- 
nation. 


IQ4  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [104 

The  most  violent  constitutional  conflicts  during  this 
period  of  New  Jersey's  colonial  history  were  during  the 
Morris  administration.  Both  governor  and  council  arrayed 
themselves  against  the  most  popular  measures  that  the  lower 
house  proposed,  such  as  the  bills  for  the  emission  of  paper 
money,  for  obliging  sheriffs  to  give  security,  and  for  pre- 
venting actions  under  £15  from  being  tried  in  the  Supreme 
Court.  On  the  other  hand,  the  assembly  steadfastly  re- 
fused to  support  the  government  or  regulate  the  militia 
until  their  measures  were  granted.  The  arbitrary  attitude 
of  the  governor  embittered  these  conflicts  and  legislative 
deadlocks  were  of  frequent  occurrence.  The  alignment  of 
parties  during  Morris's  regime  was  clearly  proprietary  and 
anti-proprietary,  but  this  division  was  even  more  pro- 
nounced during  Belcher's  term.  Then  the  contest  between 
the  proprietors  and  the  associates  became  most  acute,  and 
the  council,  dominated  by  proprietary  interests,  was  obliged 
to  oppose  the  popular  house  without  the  active  aid  of  the 
governor.  Consequently  during  this  administration  the  two 
houses  were  engaged  in  single-handed  contests  with  one 
another,  and  the  executive  was  unsuccessfully  attempting  to 
restore  harmony.  Governor  Belcher  was  in  an  unusually 
unfortunate  plight.  The  assembly  refused  to  support  the 
government  because  of  the  conflicts  with  the  council;  and 
the  upper  house  opposed  the  governor,  because  he  refused 
to  take  sides  actively  with  them.  Neutral  ground  was  hard 
to  maintain  and  the  governor  suffered  in  the  attempt. 
Before  William  Franklin  became  governor  of  the  province 
the  land  troubles  had  so  far  subsided  that  party  lines  became 
less  marked.  The  chief  concerns  of  his  administration 
were  not  such  as  to  lead  to  disputes  between  the  council 
and  assembly.  Legislation  regarding  an  important  bound- 
ary controversy  with  New  York  was  passed  without  diffi- 
culty, although  it  was  chiefly  a  proprietary  affair.     Finan- 


I05]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  105 

cial  and  military  measures  were  the  most  important  while 
Franklin  was  governor.  The  assembly  wished  to  exchange 
the  former  for  the  latter,  namely,  to  supply  barracks  for 
royal  troops  and  aid  the  king's  military  operations  in  return 
for  the  permission  to  emit  a  large  amount  of  paper  money. 
Naturally  as  the  opposition  to  the  obnoxious  acts  of  the 
English  Parliament  increased,  the  loyalty  of  the  people  to 
their  royal  governor,  who  continued  a  thorough  government 
man,  decreased. 

There  had  been  a  long  period  of  legislative  apathy  previous 
to  the  first  session  of  the  eleventh  assembly,  which  was 
the  first  assembly  to  meet  Governor  Morris.  Since  1730 
there  had  been  but  one  session  of  the  legislature,  the  second 
session  of  the  tenth  assembly,  which  met  under  Governor 
Cosby,  in  April,  1733.  Over  five  years  elapsed  between 
the  last  adjournment  of  that  assembly  and  the  first  legis- 
lative session,  with  Morris  as  governor,  in  October,  1738. 
During  this  long  interval,  and  especially  after  Cosby's  death 
in  1736,  the  efforts  of  influential  Jerseymen  were  chiefly 
occupied  in  the  important  but  difficult  task  of  securing  a 
separate  governor  for  their  province.  Success  having 
crowned  their  efforts,  the  first  meeting  of  the  assembly 
under  the  new  conditions  was  an  event  of  interest  and  im- 
portance to  the  province. 

The  elections  of  1738  had  returned  to  the  lower  house 
less  than  half  of  the  membership  of  the  former  assembly. 
Although  the  house  met  at  Perth  Amboy  on  October  27th, 
and  Joseph  Bonnell,  of  Essex,  was  elected  speaker,  no 
further  business,  was  transacted.  Adjournment  was  taken 
to  November  13th,  two  days  after  which  the  governor  ad- 
dressed the  legislature.1 

It  was  natural  that  the  governor  should  first  allude  to 

x  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  15,  1738. 


106  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [106 

the  king's  condescension  in  having  granted  the  prayer  of 
the  colony  for  a  separate  governor.  This  fact  led  Morris 
to  animadvert  upon  the  propriety  of  a  necessarily  grateful 
legislature  making  an  ample  and  suitable  provision  for  the 
support  of  the  government.  The  council  was  properly  con- 
gratulated upon  meeting  for  the  first  time  as  a  distinct 
branch  of  the  government,  separate  from  governor  and  as- 
sembly in  their  legislative  capacity.  In  addition  the  legisla- 
ture was  exhorted  to  pass  good  and  necessary  laws,  to  main- 
tain calmness  in  debate,  and  to  make  it  dangerous  for  men 
to  be  otherwise  than  just  and  honest — the  last,  it  would  seem, 
a  rather  difficult  task.  A  change  from  the  old  method  of 
having  alternate  sittings  of  the  legislature  was  urged. 

A  great  degree  of  calmness  proved  to  be  distinctive  neither 
of  this  nor  of  any  other  session  of  the  legislature  during 
Morris's  administration.  It  is  true,  that  the  assembly's  ad- 
dress, to  which  the  governor  listened  on  December  16th, 
was  harmoniously  worded,  and  the  effusive  applause  which 
it  showered  upon  him  might  well  have  misled  a  gentleman 
of  far  less  conceit.1  And  Morris  might  have  relied  too  im- 
plicitly upon  the  assertions  of  the  lower  house,  had  he  not 
read  a  resolution,  which  revealed  the  representatives  as  not 
generous  toward  him,  at  least  when  the  public  purse  was 
concerned. 

By  a  vote  of  ten  to  thirteen,  the  assembly  resolved  not 
to  allow  Morris  a  particular  sum  for  the  part  he  had  taken 
in  securing  a  distinct  governor.  The  question  was  worded 
as  if  tacitly  to  imply  that  the  governor  had  applied  for  a 
financial  reward  for  his  services.  The  assembly,  generously 
inclined,  promised  duly  to  consider  any  account  of  such  ex- 
penditures which  the  governor  might  lay  before  them.  Re- 
senting this  attitude,  Morris  declared  he  had  never  demanded 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  16,  1738. 


io7]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  i0y 

any  money  for  his  services,  but  hoped  that  he  dealt  with 
people  inclined  to  gratitude.1  He  reminded  this  assembly 
of  a  "  deal  "  between  Cosby  and  a  former  house,  according 
to  which  his  predecessor  was  to  aid  New  Jersey  in  obtain- 
ing a  separate  governor,  in  return  for  which  aid,  Cosby  was 
to  continue  to  receive  his  salary  from  New  Jersey,  as  long 
as  he  should  continue  as  governor  of  New  York.  The  mes- 
sage which  the  governor  sent  to  the  assembly  was  well  cal- 
culated to  irritate  that  body. 

This  session  was  marked  also  by  a  dispute  between  the 
two  houses  of  the  legislature  regarding  the  support  bill. 
After  this  measure  had  been  passed  by  the  assembly,  the 
council  asked  for  a  conference  upon  the  bill.  Provided 
only  the  form  and  not  the  substance  of  the  act  was  to  be 
considered,  was  the  assembly  willing  to  confer.2  As  the 
council  declared  the  right  to  request  a  conference  upon  any 
subject,  whenever  public  interest  required  such  a  proceed- 
ing, the  assembly  asserted  the  equal  right  of  each  house  to 
refuse  a  conference  at  any  time.  Only  if  no  alteration  in 
the  substance  of  the  support  bill  was  desired,  would  the 
house  agree  to  a  conference.8  To  the  reiterated  terms  of 
the  assembly,  the  council  returned  a  detailed  answer,  charg- 
ing the  assembly  with  the  attempt  to  evade  the  issue,  and 
maintaining  that  to  give  consent  to  a  conference  would  im- 
pair no  privilege  of  which  the  representative  body  could 
boast.4  The  general  principle  at  issue  was  in  the  council's 
contention  that  each  house  had  an  equal  privilege  of  pro- 
posing or  amending  any  bill. 

In  this  particular  case  the  council  desired  to  alter  the 
measure  by  which  part  of  the  public  money  for  the  support 

x  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  31,  1739. 

*  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  50.  •  Ibid.,  pp.  54,  57. 

'/bid.,  p.  68. 


108  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [108 

of  government  was  to  be  applied.1  According  to  the  gov- 
ernor, the  assembly  was  particularly  in  error  in  this  case, 
inasmuch  as  this  support  act  was  not  to  raise  money,  but 
merely  to  direct  the  application  of  funds  already  in  the  treas- 
ury. Even  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  said  Morris, 
that  the  assembly  might  refuse  a  conference  upon  a  biK 
raising  money,  "  they  had  not  the  least  collour  for  doing  it  " 
in  the  present  case.2  Rather  than  hazard  the  support  of  gov- 
ernment, the  council,  as  usual,  passed  the  bill  and  contented 
themselves  with  a  declaration  of  principle. 

Morris  regarded  the  conduct  of  the  assembly  as  exhibit- 
ing an  unusually  dangerous  tendency,  and  on  March  15, 
1739,  dissolved  the  General  Assembly.3  The  governor  de- 
plored the  fact  that  instead  of  being  a  profitable  session, 
this  had  been  the  longest  and  most  expensive  legislative 
sitting  in  the  history  of  the  colony.  His  supporters  were 
thanked  for  what  had  been  accomplished,  but  the  other 
members  were  declared  guilty  of  unbecoming  conduct. 
Sceptical  of  the  advantages  of  a  second  session  of  the 
eleventh  assembly,  Morris  dissolved  it  in  the  hope  that  the 
newly-elected  body  would  be  more  disposed  to  harmony, 
that  is,  more  in  sympathy  with  the  governor.4 

The  session  was  not  entirely  devoid  of  results,  but  the 
great  majority  of  the  important  bills  considered  were  not 
passed  at  this  time.  Of  the  nine  acts  passed  at  this  session, 
four  were  of  particular  importance.5  These  were  acts  to 
support  the  government,  to  settle  the  militia,  to  restrain 
extravagant  and  excessive  interest,  and  to  erect  Morris 
County.  Some  of  the  bills  that  failed  to  pass  both  houses 
or  did  not  receive  the  governor's  assent  included  measures 

x Morris  Papers,  p.  41.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  42. 

•  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  79.  *  Morris  Papers,  p.  51. 

6Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  99. 


I09]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  109 

for  the  more  frequent  meeting  and  electing  of  represen- 
tatives, for  the  regulation  and  preservation  of  the  public 
roads,  for  shortening  law  suits  and  regulating  the  practise 
of  the  law,  for  obliging  sheriffs  to  give  security  and  take 
oaths,  and  for  laying  a  duty  on  staves  and  shingles.1 

The  people  of  New  Jersey  had  had  their  first  legislative 
session  under  a  separate  governor.  That  the  new  regime 
had  made  for  harmony  did  not  appear.  This,  too,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  new  chief  executive  had  previously  in 
New  Jersey  met  with  the  acclaim  of  a  popular  hero.  The 
change  had  been  effected  in  the  case  of  Morris  rather  than 
the  people.  Looking  to  a  larger  field  of  history,  the  conduct 
of  the  people  in  this  case  is  analogous  to  the  revulsion  of 
feeling  which  William  Pitt  experienced  a  generation  later, 
when  he  was  raised  to  the  peerage  and  became  the  Earl  of 
Chatham.  Instead  of  Lewis  Morris,  champion  of  the  peo- 
ple's rights,  the  populace  beheld  him  in  a  position  which 
they  had  come  to  regard  with  suspicion.  With  another  type 
of  man,  this  feeling  could  have  been  overcome,  but  in  the 
case  of  Morris,  whose  extensive  interests  in  the  colony  not 
unnaturally  aroused  the  suspicion  of  possible  partial  judg- 
ments and  whose  temperament  did  not  encourage  concilia- 
tion, the  distrust  increased  and  the  opposition  became  more 
marked. 

The  first  session  of  the  twelfth  assembly  met  at  Burling- 
ton on  April  10,  1740,  and  elected  Andrew  Johnson  speaker. 
Bonnell,  the  former  speaker,  had  not  been  returned  to  this 
assembly,  a  fate  which  had  befallen  seven  other  members. 
Only  one  of  the  governor's  consistent  supporters  in  the  East 
Jersey  delegation  was  returned.  Upon  the  whole,  Morris 
had  evidently  not  strengthened  his  position  by  the  appeal 
to  the  people. 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  39,  note. 


1 10  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [  i  iq 

It  was  April  16th  before  the  governor  addressed  the  as- 
sembly.1 In  a  characteristic  message,  Morris  advised  the 
representatives  at  great  length  to  avoid  the  mistakes  of  the 
former  house,  and  seek  to  exercise  only  those  powers  that 
were  properly  theirs.  The  advisability  of  laying  import 
duties  was  suggested.  The  assembly  was  especially  urged 
to  co-operate  in  the  expedition  under  Colonel  Spotswood, 
which  was  to  join  forces  sent  from  England  against  the 
Spanish  colonies  in  the  West  Indies. 

The  reply  of  the  assembly  on  April  25th  was  a  cleverly- 
worded  answer  to  all  the  subjects  touched  upon  by  the  gov- 
ernor.2 In  some  cases  words  of  the  governor's  address 
were  paraphrased  to  suit  the  purpose  of  the  assembly.  If 
the  governor's  professed  hopes  for  a  successful  meeting  were 
founded  upon  the  assembly's  address,  events  proved  that 
they  were  built  upon  sand. 

The  governor's  recommendation  that  aid  be  furnished 
to  the  West  Indian  expedition  had  passed  unheeded  by  the 
assembly.  On  June  26,  1740,  Morris  sent  a  second  message 
to  the  lower  house  upon  this  subject.8  Ostensibly  to  con- 
sult their  constituents  upon  this  important  business,  the 
house  asked  for  a  fortnight's  adjournment,  but  fearing  the 
adjournment  would  be  disastrous  to  his  plans,  the  governor 
refused  it.4  Only  after  an  act  making  current  two  thou- 
sand pounds  in  bills  of  credit  for  victualling  and  transport- 
ing troops  was  passed,  was  an  adjournment  permitted. 

After  a  recess  from  the  fifth  to  the  twenty-first  of  July, 
Morris  urged  material  changes  in  the  bill,  that  had  been 
passed,  for  supplying  the  troops.  The  assembly  was  ob- 
durate, however,  and  not  disposed  to  accede  to  the  chief 

1  Assembly  Journal,  April  16,  1740.  %Ibid.,  April  25,  1740. 

3N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  126. 
4  Morris  Papers,  p.  98. 


m]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  1 1 1 

executive's  desires.  The  legislature  was  kept  in  session  until 
the  end  of  the  month,  when  the  house  was  prorogued  with- 
out having  altered  the  objectionable  measure. 

The  second  session  of  the  twelfth  assembly,  which  met 
at  Perth  Amboy,  on  October  2,  1741,  was  not  marred  by  con- 
flicts. The  address  to  the  council  and  assembly  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session,  urged  the  further  support  of  government, 
and  renewed  the  periodical  recommendation  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  house  suitable  for  the  governor,  and  convenient 
meeting  places  for  the  legislative  sittings.1  The  plea  for 
one  seat  of  government  was  made  on  the  ground  of  economy. 
An  interesting  proposal  made  by  Morris  at  this  time  was 
that  the  provincial  laws  should  be  revised  by  duly  qualified 
and  authorized  persons  to  the  end  that  a  correct  edition 
should  be  made  of  them.  Proper  measures  of  defence 
against  Spain  were  declared  necessary. 

This  session  was  brief,  business-like  and  noticeably  free 
from  disagreeable  wrangles  between  the  branches  of  the 
government,  the  credit  for  which  was  modestly  assumed  by 
the  governor.2  The  assembly,  however,  showed  the  usual 
independent  spirit  in  regard  to  the  militia  act,  which  it  re- 
fused to  alter.  The  Quakers  were  blamed  for  the  failure  of 
the  lower  house  to  improve  the  militia  law,  in  accordance 
with  the  recommendation  of  the  governor.  An  act  provid- 
ing that  actions  under  fifteen  pounds  should  not  be  brought 
into  the  Supreme  Court,  was  also  passed  at  this  session. 
Morris  was  in  fact  opposed  to  this  measure,  but  assented  to 
it,  rather  than  endanger  the  harmony  of  the  session.  The 
support  bill  was  passed  without  difficulty.  That  this  peace- 
ful session  would  be  followed  by  another  attended  with  even 
more  success,  was  the  expressed  hope  of  the  governor. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  200. 
*  Morris  Papers,  p.  140. 


1 12  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [  1 12 

When  the  twelfth  assembly  met  for  the  third  session  at 
Burlington,  on  October  16,  1742,  His  Excellency  was 
pleased  to  make  a  brief  and  favorable  speech.1  The  assem- 
bly was  cognizant  of  the  fact,  said  the  governor,  that  an- 
other suitable  provision  should  be  made  for  the  support  of 
government.  To  amend  old  laws,  where  experience  had 
showed  defects,  was  declared  to  be  as  necessary  as  forming 
new  ones.  The  better  maintenance  of  the  roads  and  bridges 
was  recommended.  In  order  that  the  public  welfare  might 
be  advanced,  which  was  the  true  end  of  their  meeting,  the 
preservation  of  a  proper  temper  and  agreement  in  the  legis- 
lature was  confidently  desired. 

The  friendly  tone  of  Morris's  address  may  have  led  the 
assembly  to  seize  this  as  a  favorable  opportunity  for  passing 
measures  to  test  the  governor.  Council  and  assembly  with- 
out difficulty  agreed  upon  certain  bills  to  which  the  governor 
later  showed  himself  violently  opposed.  The  absence  of 
Robert  Hunter  Morris  from  the  council  at  this  time  ac- 
counts in  part  for  the  harmony  between  the  branches  of  the 
legislature.2  The  younger  Morris  was  not  only  the  ablest 
member  of  the  council,  but  was  also  the  most  enthusiastic 
supporter  of  the  administration.  During  this  session,  both 
because  of  the  personnel  of  the  council  and  the  character  of 
the  measures  under  consideration,  the  upper  house  was  less 
susceptible  than  formerly  to  the  influence  of  the  executive.3 

Two  acts  were  passed,  one  to  declare  how  the  estate  or 
right  of  a  feme  covert  might  be  converted  or  extinguished, 
and  another  concerning  the  acknowledging  of  deeds.  Both 
were  opposed  by  the  governor.4  Similar  acts  had  previously 
been  disallowed  by  the  crown  authorities,  as  encroachments 
upon  the  royal  prerogative.    Morris  of  course  refused  to  as- 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  246.  *  Morris  Papers,  p.  154. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  155.  *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  270. 


113]  LEGISLA  TIVE  HI  ST  OR  Y  n$ 

sent  to  the  bills,  and  suggested  that  his  acquiescence  might 
have  been  desired  merely  to  expose  him  to  the  deserved  cen- 
sure of  the  king.1 

The  assembly  had  added  a  bill  for  the  regulation  of  fees 
to  the  support  bill  in  the  hope  that  the  governor,  to  obtain 
the  support  of  government,  would  assent  to  the  whole.  The 
ostensible  reason  for  altering  the  fees  was  in  response  to 
complaints  against  the  law  practitioners,  but  the  real  inten- 
tion, according  to  Morris,  was  to  reduce  the  income  of  the 
secretary  and  other  officers  of  government.2  It  was  only 
with  difficulty  that  the  governor  succeeded  in  having  the 
fee  provisions  omitted  from  the  support  act.  The  bill  for 
the  support  of  government  was  the  only  act  passed  at  this 
session  of  the  legislature. 

It  was  the  conduct  of  the  assembly,  regarding  their  bill 
to  relieve  the  necessities  of  the  people  by  emitting  £40,000 
in  bills  of  credit,  that  most  seriously  irritated  the  sensibilities 
of  the  governor.  An  additional  measure,  which  was  to  be 
passed  to  provide  for  printing  and  signing  the  £40,000  in 
paper  money,  granted  £500  to  the  governor.8  Hearsay  had 
informed  the  governor,  he  told  the  assembly,  that  this  act 
was  intended  to  "  be  pass'd  in  a  Secret  manner,  peculiar  to 
itself,  as  usuall,  and  not  sent  home,  that  the  ministry  might 
not  know  I  was  to  have  500  pounds  for  passing  it."  "  You 
mistook  your  man,"  protested  the  governor,  declaring  the 
whole  £40,000  would  not  have  been  a  sufficient  inducement. 

His  objection  to  the  bill  was  that  it  failed  to  contain 
a  proper  provision  for  the  support  of  the  government.  Only 
if  provision  was  made  for  the  erection  of  a  governor's  resi- 
dence and  houses  for  the  meetings  of  the  council  and  assem- 

lN.  J.  A.y  vol.  xv,  p.  272. 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  152. 

% Ibid.,  p.  154;  N.  J.  A.y  vol.  xv,  p.  273. 


II4  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [114 

bly  and  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  public  records  of  the 
province,  could  an  emission  bill  hope  to  find  favor  with 
him.  There  was  a  suspending  clause  to  the  act,  but  never- 
theless Morris  rejected  it,  as  containing  nothing  which 
would  recommend  it  to  the  king's  ministers.  A  more  tactful 
governor  would  have  spared  himself  the  unpopularity  which 
this  conduct  courted,  and  have  left  the  disallowances  to  the 
royal  officials.  But  the  Morris  motto  was  prerogative  rather 
than  tact.  The  statesmanship  and  foresight  of  his  conten- 
tion, however,  cannot  be  denied. 

It  was  not  only  in  the  legislation  which  the  assembly  pro- 
posed that  they  ran  counter  to  the  governor.  One  of  the 
representatives,  Benjamin  Smith  from  Hunterdon  County, 
had  had  judgment  against  him  by  referees,  to  whom,  ac- 
cording to  a  rule  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  case  had  been 
referred.1  Smith  had  complained  to  the  assembly  against 
the  decision,  and  a  committee  on  grievances  was  appointed 
to  consider  the  case.  This  conduct  was  in  the  nature  of  an 
appeal  from  a  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court,  an  assump' 
tion  of  power  totally  unwarranted.  On  November  18,  1742, 
the  matter  was  referred  for  further  consideration.  Morris 
properly  informed  the  house  that  erroneous  judgments  of 
the  Supreme  Court  might  be  reversed  by  the  governor  and 
council,  but  not  by  the  assembly. 

The  lack  of  unanimity  at  this  session  convinced  the  gov- 
ernor that  the  people  should  be  allowed  a  new  choice  of  their 
representatives.  He  thought  the  present  members  were 
well-meaning,  but  were  imposed  upon  and  misled.  After 
a  long  speech  to  the  legislature,  in  which  their  misdeeds  were 
enumerated  and  detailed,  the  governor  dissolved  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.2 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  276;  Morris  Papers,  p.  152. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  267. 


1 1 5  ]  LEGISLA  TIVE  HISTORY  i 1 5 

There  were  ten  new  members  in  the  thirteenth  assembly, 
when  it  met  for  the  first  session  at  Perth  Amboy  on  October 
10,  1743,  among  them  Samuel  Nevill.  Events  showed  that 
their  attitude  upon  the  public  questions  did  not  differ  from 
that  of  the  former  house.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  session 
the  governor  addressed  the  houses,  promising  assent  to  bene- 
ficial laws  and  urging  friendly  intercourse  between  those 
who  were  concerned  in  making  laws,  and  the  discourage- 
ment of  whatever  might  tend  to  create  differences.1 

The  assembly  complained  that  many  beneficial  acts  had 
been  passed  at  recent  sessions  only  to  be  rejected.  Encour- 
aged by  the  assurance  of  the  governor  to  assent  to  bene- 
ficial laws,  when  in  his  power  to  do  so,  they  would  again  pre- 
pare such  measures  as  they  regarded  necessary.  As  proof 
of  his  good  intentions,  the  assembly  intimated  that  the  gov- 
ernor should  assent  to  the  bills  laid  before  him,  before  the 
support  act  was  passed.  That  was  declared  by  the  governor 
to  be  of  no  consequence,  for  "  the  one  ought  not  to  be  given 
in  exchange  for,  or  to  purchase  the  other,"  and  he  would  not 
be  influenced  by  the  possible  fate  of  the  act  for  support.2 

Two  of  the  assembly's  favorite  bills  received  the  executive 
approval,  "  an  Act  concerning  acknowledging  Deeds  in  the 
Colony  of  New  Jersey,  and  declaring  how  the  Estate  or 
Right  of  a  Feme  Covert  may  be  conveyed  or  extinguished," 
and  "  an  Act  for  ascertaining  the  Fees  to  be  taken  by  the 
several  Officers."  An  act  for  the  support  of  government 
for  one  year  was  also  enacted.  The  council  at  this  session 
rejected  the  assembly's  bill  to  emit  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit. 

The  session  did  not  end,  however,  without  a  quarrel.  Al- 
though the  bill  for  ascertaining  the  fees  had  a  suspending 
clause  attached,  the  assembly  passed  a  formal  resolution  that 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  279. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  22,  1743. 


I  j6  the  province  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [h6 

it  "  ought  to  have  due  weight  with  the  judges  and  all  others 
concerned."  This  indiscretion  led  to  the  demand  from  the 
governor,  that  the  assembly  should  justify  such  unwarrant- 
able conduct.  The  lower  house  calmly  stated  that  an  opin- 
ion only  had  been  vouchsafed,  for  which  they  did  not  re- 
gard themselves  accountable  to  anyone  and  asked  that  the 
session  be  brought  to  a  close.  On  December  ioth,  the  gov- 
ernor told  the  assembly  that  their  action  in  this  matter  was 
a  contradiction  of  the  suspending  clause  of  the  fee  bill.1 
They  were  thanked  for  the  support  act  and  then  prorogued. 

War  having  been  declared  against  France  by  King 
George  II,  the  assembly  was  summoned  to  meet  on  June  22, 
1744,  for  the  express  purpose  of  putting  the  provincial 
militia  upon  a  better  footing.  As  early  as  October  22,  1743, 
an  administrative  session  of  the  council  had  advised  a  re- 
vision of  the  militia  act,  in  order  to  make  it  more  service- 
able.2 In  his  address  of  June  22d,  the  governor  pointed  out 
the  danger  of  lax  military  discipline  to  public  safety,  and 
recommended  a  prompt  and  adequate  consideration  of  the 
militia  act  and  the  state  of  the  colonial  defence.8 

The  assembly,  in  committee  of  the  whole  house,  resolved 
by  a  vote  of  16  to  6  that  the  militia  law  in  force  was  suffi- 
cient.4 In  an  address  to  the  governor,  notifying  him  of 
their  decision,  they  asked  for  a  recess  because  of  the  harvest 
season.  This  request  was  refused,  and  a  militia  act  was 
thereupon  prepared  by  the  council,  passed  and  then  sent  to 
the  assembly. 

This  bill  substituted  a  money  payment  instead  of  active 
militia  service  for  Quakers,  but  was  rejected  in  the  assem- 
bly by  the  same  16  to  6  vote  as  above.6    Although  professing 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  31S.  *Ibid.t  p.  282. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  322.  *  Assembly  Journal,  June  27,  1744. 

6 Ibid.,  July  2,  1744. 


!  1 7]  LEGISLA TIVE  HISTORY  1 1 7 

willingness  to  provide  for  all  necessary  military  expenses, 
the  assembly  testified  to  the  uncertainty  and  difficulty  of  at- 
tending thereto  beforehand ! x  The  governor's  interpreta- 
tion of  this  message  does  not  appear  to  be  amiss.  He 
credited  the  assembly  with  willingness  to  provide  for  the 
defence  of  the  province,  after  the  country  was  invaded. 
The  assembly  ordered  the  council's  militia  bill  to  lie  upon 
the  table.  As  the  representatives  persisted  in  their  attitude, 
the  governor  brought  the  thirteenth  assembly  to  an  end  by 
dissolution  on  July  3,  1744. 

The  election  for  members  of  the  fourteenth  assembly  did 
not  indicate  an  increase  of  prestige  for  the  governor. 
Farmar,  Leonard,  and  Bonnell  were  replaced  by  Hude, 
Ouke,  and  Crane,  men  of  similar  opinion.  A  like  circum- 
stance occurred  in  the  changes  in  the  West  Jersey  delega- 
tion. The  house,  which  met  at  Perth  Amboy  on  August 
18,  1744,  elected  Samuel  Nevill,  a  man  of  ability,  as  speaker. 

A  brief  message  from  the  governor,  on  the  opening  day 
of  the  session,  recommended  simply  that  the  defects  of  the 
militia  act  should  be  remedied.2  A  week  later,  the  assem- 
bly having  taken  the  state  of  the  militia  into  consideration, 
resolved  that  provision  should  be  made  from  time  to  time 
for  military  expenses  occasioned  by  calling  out  the  forces.* 
Thereupon  the  assembly  addressed  the  governor,  promising 
to  make  the  safety  of  the  people  as  effectual  as  possible.4 
Although  they  hoped  the  need  for  forces  would  not  arise, 
they  would  not  hesitate  to  provide  the  means  for  repelling 
an  enemy. 

Having  expressed  the  desire  for  an  adjournment,   the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  July  3,  1744. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  337. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  25,  1744. 
4N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  338. 


1 18  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [n8 

representatives  were  gratified  that  the  governor  should  grant 
the  request  and  leave  the  choice  of  the  place  of  meeting  to 
their  decision.1  Burlington,  having  been  favored  as  the 
meeting-place  for  the  next  session,  the  assembly  convened 
there  October  4th.  The  apparent  harmony  between  Morris 
and  the  assembly  upon  matters  of  routine  was  merely  a  sur- 
face peace.  The  transaction  of  the  public  business  having 
begun,  the  former  causes  of  dissension  were  revived.  It  was 
in  order  better  to  control  the  legislature  that  the  governor, 
whose  presence  at  Burlington  had  been  prevented  by  illness, 
adjourned  it  to  meet  at  Trenton  on  November  14th.2  By 
a  later  adjournment  the  house  was  summoned  to  meet  at 
Kingsbury,  where  the  governor  resided. 

The  opposition  to  the  governor  became  more  pronounced 
than  before.  The  bill  to  oblige  sheriffs  to  give  security,  the 
£40,000  act,  and  a  measure  for  laying  a  duty  upon  Indian, 
negro,  and  mulatto  slaves,  were  subjects  of  bitter  discus- 
sion between  the  two  branches  of  the  legislature.  The  situa- 
tion was  made  more  difficult  by  an  assembly  report  on  the 
state  of  public  affairs,  agreed  upon  in  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house  on  November  22d.8 

This  report,  consisting  of  four  resolutions,  first  declared 
that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  proper  freedom  and  privi- 
leges of  the  people  that  the  same  person  should  be  both  chief 
justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  a  member  of  the  council. 
This  person,  being  none  other  than  the  governor's  son  and 
the  most  powerful  councillor,  the  resolve  was  calculated  to 
stir  up  at  least  two  departments  of  the  provincial  govern- 
ment. Furthermore,  the  fact  that  there  were  only  six  or 
seven  councillors  was  declared  a  hindrance  to  the  public 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  25,  1744. 

* Ibid.,  Nov.  12,  1744. 

3  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  369. 


i  ig]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  i  ig 

business  and  the  cause  of  great  delay.  With  splendid  econ- 
omy and  a  tender  forethought  for  their  distant  ruler,  the 
assembly  urged  a  frugal  application  of  the  money  in  the 
treasury,  in  order  that  the  king  might  be  assisted  upon  any 
emergency  in  the  contests  with  France  and  Spain.  Lastly, 
the  colony  was  declared  to  be  in  such  condition,  as  not  to 
be  able  to  support  the  government  as  largely  as  heretofore. 
Suiting  the  action  to  the  word,  the  salaries  of  the  officers  of 
government  were  halved ! 

Such  sentiments  quite  naturally  evoked  a  reply  from  the 
council.  Resolutions  in  answer  to  the  assembly  were  passed 
on  November  30th.1  Resenting  an  attack  upon  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  crown  and  reflections  upon  the  character  of 
the  council,  the  upper  house  declared  the  appointment  of 
the  chief  justice  a  duty  for  the  king  to  perform,  and  not  for 
the  assembly  to  criticize.  Likewise  the  king  could  appoint 
whatever  number  of  councillors  he  desired,  and  might  make 
such  appointments  whenever  he  saw  fit.  The  governor's 
power  in  the  appointment  of  councillors  was  restricted,  as 
the  council  also  mentioned,  in  that  he  could  only  fill  vacan- 
cies when  the  number  of  councillors  was  less  than  seven. 
The  assembly  had  previously  stated  that  the  action  of  the 
council  had  been  improperly  influenced  upon  certain  meas- 
ures, an  assertion  which  the  upper  house  at  this  time  de- 
clared untrue,  an  affront,  and  liable  to  disquiet  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  New  Jersey. 

The  wordy  debate  was  continued  by  the  assembly  in  re- 
buttal resolutions  of  December  5th.2  Wordiness  rather 
than  argument  characterized  their  answer.  A  disguise  of 
epithets  could  not  deceive,  intimated  the  assembly,  and  con- 
scious of  having  acted  in  accordance  with  the  trust  reposed 
in  them,  they  would  reply  to  no  further  groundless  attacks 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  374.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  379. 


120  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [I2Q 

upon  their  conduct.  The  incompatibility  of  the  same  per- 
son acting  as  chief  justice  and  councillor  was  reasserted.  In 
theory  this  would  certainly  be  true,  but  the  argument  of  the 
assembly  was  nullified  by  the  fact  that  a  chief  justice  was 
forbidden  to  sit  as  a  councillor  when  that  body  was  consid- 
ering a  case  which  he  had  determined  in  court 

The  council  did  not  reply  directly  to  the  assembly,  but, 
on  December  8,  1744,  delivered  an  address  to  the  governor 
in  defence  of  their  conduct  in  rejecting  certain  bills  passed 
by  the  lower  house.1  The  act  to  oblige  sheriffs  to  give  se- 
curity was  rejected  because  a  provision  allowed  a  sheriff's 
continuance  in  office  for  only  three  years ;  the  bill  to  lay  an 
import  duty  upon  slaves,  because  it  would  injure  the 
farmers;  and  the  act  making  £40,000  current  in  bills  of 
credit,  because  its  preamble  was  a  subterfuge,  and  the  theory 
of  raising  funds  by  paper  money  loans  was  unreasonable 
and  unjust  to  the  poor.  Furthermore  the  council  protested 
against  the  refusal  of  the  assembly  to  join  in  a  conference 
upon  the  militia  act,  and  declared  the  pretended  frugality 
of  the  lower  house  to  be  misdirected  zeal. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  the  lower  house  was  bidding  for 
popular  favor;  was  playing  politics.  Despite  the  assertion 
of  the  governor  that  he  had  not  influenced  the  council  in 
the  slightest  degree  this  seems  improbable,  for  he  was  a 
clever  manager,  was  in  a  tight  place,  and  in  desperate  need 
of  support.2  The  council  at  least  was  playing  an  incon- 
sistent role.  It  is  of  course  incontrovertible  that  opinions 
are  subject  to  change,  but  that  there  should  be  such  a  direct 
and  complete  change  of  opinion  in  a  short  time  on  the  part 
of  the  councillors  is  not  a  compliment  to  the  stability  of  that 
body.  This  change  was  most  marked  in  their  altered  notion 
of  the  beneficence  of  paper  money. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  381.  8 Morris  Popers,  p.  229. 


121  ]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  I2i 

The  disputed  election  of  a  loan-office  commissioner 
widened  the  breach  between  the  governor  and  assembly  at 
this  session.  The  house  received  a  petition  from  certain 
Hunterdon  County  inhabitants  complaining  that  the  elec- 
tion of  Andrew  Reed  over  Joseph  Yard  was  a  grievance 
and  an  evil  precedent.1  As  the  complaint  was  against 
justices  of  the  peace,  Morris's  appointees,  the  representa- 
tives, with  characteristic  boldness,  seized  this  favorable  op- 
portunity with  avidity. 

The  facts,  as  represented  by  the  justices,  were  that  fifteen 
votes  had  been  cast  for  Reed,  ten  by  justices,  and  six  for 
Yard,  all  by  freeholders.2  The  only  question  apparently 
was  as  to  the  right  of  the  justices  to  vote.  If  Yard  felt 
aggrieved,  he  was  advised  by  the  governor  to  appeal  to  a 
court  for  redress. 

An  assembly  committee  appointed  to  investigate  this 
matter  reported,  on  November  9th,  that  an  act  of  the  7 
George  II  provided  for  the  election  of  loan-office  commis- 
sioners by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  of  the  county,  with 
the  concurrence  of  three  justices.3  This  report  having  been 
accepted,  only  Leonard,  Ouke  and  Hude  disagreeing,  the 
house  resolved  that  the  Hunterdon  election  was  "  Arbitrary, 
Illegal,  and  in  itself  Void,"  and  asked  for  the  removal  of 
the  justices  involved  or  the  institution  of  legal  proceedings 
against  them.  A  statement  of  fact  regarding  the  case,  and 
the  opinion  of  the  assembly  as  expressed  in  the  resolution, 
were  embodied  in  an  address  to  the  governor.4 

The  governor,  failing  to  discover  the  act  of  7  George  II, 
to  which  the  committee  had  referred,  addressed  the  house 
upon  the  subject.6    His  position  was  that,  though  the  elec- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1744.  2 Ibid.,  Nov.  7,  1744. 

*  Ibid.,  Nov.  9,  1744.  *Ibid.,  Nov.  10,  1744. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  8,  1744. 


122  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [122 

tion  might  be  voidable,  it  was  not  void  until  declared  so  by 
some  competent  authority.  It  was  a  question  for  the  courts 
to  decide,  and  legal  measures  were  open  to  any  one  who  feit 
aggrieved.  His  message  was  a  long  document  in  support 
of  his  position. 

This  was  simply  another  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  lower 
house  to  exercise  authority  not  legally  delegated  to  it.  Al- 
though Morris  had  been  unable  to  unearth  the  act  of  the  7 
George  II,  to  which  the  assembly  referred,  that  act  was  not 
a  fiction  of  the  house  committee.  The  act  of  that  year  "  for 
making  Forty  Thousand  Pounds  in  Bills  of  Credit "  regu- 
lated the  election  of  loan-office  commissioners.1  Neverthe- 
less, the  position  of  the  governor  was  correct  in  this  matter. 
Although  a  dissolution  put  an  end  to  the  quarrel  at  this  time, 
the  question  was  later  revived. 

On  December  7th  the  assembly  asked  to  be  dismissed,  if 
the  public  business  required  no  further  attention  at  the  time. 
The  next  day,  after  having  stated  his  position  in  the  Hun- 
terdon election  case,  Morris  dissolved  the  General  Assem- 
bly, regretting  that  the  session  had  been  so  unsatisfactory.2 
Unsatisfactory  the  session  had  been,  many  important  meas- 
ures had  been  under  consideration,  but  had  failed  to  pass. 
Such  included  the  acts  to  oblige  sheriffs  to  give  security  to 
keep  actions  of  £15  or  under  from  the  Supreme  Court,  to 
emit  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit,  to  settle  and  regulate  the 
provincial  militia,  to  regulate  the  New  York  and  New  Jer- 
sey boundary  line  and  to  improve  and  encourage  the  manu- 
facture of  flour.  As  if  to  stamp  the  session  as  a  comedy  of 
errors,  the  only  public  act  passed  provided  for  the  encour- 
agement of  the  destruction  of  crows,  blackbirds,  squirrels 
and  woodpeckers  in  three  counties.3 

^llinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  99.  ■  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  8,  1744. 

'Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  138. 


123]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  i2$ 

For  the  third  successive  year  elections  for  assembly  repre- 
sentatives were  held.  A  large  number  of  new  members  ap- 
peared at  the  first  session  of  the  fifteenth  assembly,  begun 
at  Perth  Amboy  on  April  4,  1745.  Although  the  personnel 
of  a  part  of  the  East  Jersey  delegation  changed,  Morris  con- 
tinued to  draw  his  support  from  that  section.  The  election 
had  rather  weakened  than  strengthened  his  position. 

The  address  of  the  governor  to  the  legislature  on  April 
5th  was  a  heated  harangue  against  the  shortcomings  of  the 
former  assembly.1  He  reviewed  the  conduct  of  the  assem- 
bly during  the  quarrel  with  the  council  at  the  last  session, 
insinuating  that  the  house  was  governed  by  the  impetuosity 
of  blind  passions.  They  were  ordered  to  take  notice  of  his 
determination  not  to  assent  to  any  of  their  bills  until  the 
support  of  government  had  been  properly  provided.  The 
incompatibility  of  uniting  the  offices  of  chief  justice  and 
councillor  was  declared  no  valid  reason  for  denying  the 
support  of  government.  Little  heeding  his  advice  in  prac- 
tice, Morris  urged  that  condescension  and  cool  debate,  rather 
than  warm  contentions,  should  regulate  their  conduct,  when 
differing  in  opinion  from  the  other  departments.  The  only 
subject  directly  presented  for  their  consideration  was  the 
plan  of  an  expedition  under  Shirley  against  the  French. 

That  the  assembly  could  reply  to  the  impassioned  address 
of  the  governor  with  as  much  equanimity  as  they  succeeded 
in  exhibiting,  reflects  credit  upon  their  patience.  It  was  not 
delivered  until  May  2,  1745,  its  chief  complaint  being  that 
the  governor  had  taken  pains  to  undervalue  and  explode 
some  of  the  proceedings  of  the  former  house.2  They  not 
unnaturally  wearied  at  having  long  tirades  against  the  evil 
practises  of  a  former  house  hurled  at  them.  The  governor 
was  referred  to  the  council  for  an  explanation  as  to  why  the 

1  N.  J.  A.t  vol.  xv,  p.  393.  *  Ibid.,  p.  410. 


124  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [124 

government  had  been  unsupported,  and  his  refusal  to  pass 
any  bill  until  the  government  had  been  supported  was  re- 
gretted. 

After  the  assembly  address  had  been  delivered  the  legis- 
lature was  prorogued  for  five  days,  but  upon  reassembling 
was  obliged  to  wait  until  May  13th  before  the  governor  re- 
plied to  their  address.  In  was  another  long  account,  longer 
than  ordinary,  of  the  misbehavior  of  recent  assemblies,  and 
an  exposition  of  their  unwarrantable  conduct.1  The  action 
of  the  people's  representatives  in  passing  an  act  to  emit 
paper  money,  when  it  was  known  that  that  subject  was  under 
the  consideration  of  the  parliament,  received  especially  se- 
vere criticism.  Resolved  that  no  recent  outrages  should  fail 
to  be  mentioned,  the  case  of  the  Hunterdon  County  loan- 
office  election  was  unearthed.  They  were  enlightened  as  to 
their  duty  to  the  people.  Simple,  said  Morris,  was  that 
duty.  Their  constituents  wished  them  to  support  the  gov- 
ernment and  not  to  quarrel  with  the  governor. 

Before  the  prorogation  of  May  2d  the  support  bill  had 
been  passed,  but  it  allowed  the  governor  only  £500  and  was 
certain  to  be  rejected  on  that  account.  The  question  of  aid- 
ing the  expedition  had  also  been  considered,  but  action  was 
deferred,  pending  the  attitude  of  the  home  government 
toward  this  affair,  and  because  it  was  too  late  to  render  any 
naval  assistance.2  An  act  for  settling  the  militia  had  also 
been  passed.  The  prorogation,  however,  had  nullified  this 
business,  and  on  May  18th,  after  the  interchange  of  lengthy 
state  documents,  the  assembly  inquired  if  there  was  anything 
further  to  be  transacted.3 

Speaker  Nevill  waited  upon  the  governor  at  Kingsbury, 
and  in  reply  to  the  message  was  told  that  it  was  His  Ex- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  418. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  26,  1745.  *Ibid.,  May  18,  1745. 


125]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  1^5 

cellency's  privilege  to  prorogue  the  legislature  when  he 
wished  to.  The  house  was  ordered  to  begin  again  on  the 
business  recommended  at  the  previous  session.  On  May 
28th  the  assembly  declared  their  refusal  to  answer  the  gov- 
ernor's long  statement  of  May  13,  1745.  The  temptation 
was  overmastering,  however,  and  with  beautiful  incon-« 
sistency  they  attacked  the  chief  executive  regarding  the 
support  of  government  and  the  militia  act.1 

Meanwhile  Shirley  had  renewed  his  application  for  aid 
from  New  Jersey.2  With  commendable  promptness,  the  as- 
sembly prepared  and  passed  a  bill  applying  £2,000  for  the 
king's  service.  It  passed  the  council  and  received  the  gov- 
ernor's assent  on  June  1,  1745.  ■ 

The  assembly  was  favored  with  another  long  message 
from  Morris  on  June  1st*  The  same  objects  were  treated 
in  much  the  same  way  as  before.  The  governor  had  been 
notified  that  the  government  would  be  supported  in  ex- 
change, virtually,  for  his  assent  to  the  acts  to  emit  £40,000, 
to  oblige  sheriffs  to  give  security  for  their  offices,  and  to  pre- 
vent actions  under  £15  being  tried  in  the  Supreme  Court. 
Morris  said  the  sole  cause  of  disagreement  was  the  paper 
money  bill,  and  he  could  give  no  assurance  that  the  king 
would  assent  to  it,  even  if  he  did. 

The  speaker  was  then  directed  to  order  adjournments  of 
three  weeks  at  a  time,  until  he  was  otherwise  notified.4  It 
was  the  sixteenth  of  August  when  the  house  next  met.  Be- 
cause of  the  governor's  illness,  the  session  had  been  ad- 
journed to  Trenton.  On  August  21st  the  assembly  heard 
the  governor's  speech.  It  contained  recommendations  for  a 
more  suitable  provision  to  effectually  defend  the  country, 
and  for  the  support  of  government,  while  the  governor  re- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  May  28,  1744.  * Morris  Papers,  p.  241. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  June  1.  1745.  *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  446. 


126  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [126 

gretted  the  impossibility  of  his  meeting  the  legislature  at 
Perth  Amboy,  the  proper  meeting-place  for  this  session.1 
The  assembly  was  urged  also  to  repay  to  the  treasury  the 
£2,000  appropriated  for  the  Cape  Breton  expedition. 

The  lower  house  was  disinclined  to  contribute  further  for 
military  affairs,  but  began  a  controversy  concerning  their 
meeting  at  Trenton.  The  governor  was  asked  for  his  in- 
structions as  to  the  meeting-place  of  the  legislature.2  Re- 
fusing to  comply  with  this  request,  Morris  curtly  told  the 
house  that  the  governor  had  the  sole  right  to  call,  adjourn, 
prorogue  and  dissolve  assemblies,  that  his  commission  might 
be  inspected,  but  as  for  his  instructions,  they  were  secret. 
The  assembly  determined  to  elicit  the  desired  information 
from  the  council,  but  before  an  answer  could  be  returned  to 
their  request  the  legislature  was  prorogued  to  September 
24th.3 

Illness  again  having  prevented  the  governor  from  per- 
sonally attending  the  session  at  Burlington,  he  wrote  to 
Speaker  Nevill,  that  at  the  request  of  the  representatives  he 
had  postponed  the  session  to  this  time,  when,  it  was  hoped, 
"  the  business  of  their  husbandry  could  not  well  obstruct 
their  thinking  calmly  and  effectually "  upon  what  was 
recommended  to  them.4  Repetition  of  the  request  for  gov- 
ernmental support  was  made,  and  they  were  reminded  of  the 
unsettled  condition  of  the  militia.  The  governor  had  oc- 
casion to  allude  for  the  first  time  to  the  land  riots.  Before 
the  meeting  of  the  assembly  Samuel  Baldwin  had  been 
forcibly  released  from  the  Essex  County  jail,  where  he  had 
been  imprisoned  for  resisting  an  order  of  the  council  of 
East  Jersey  proprietors  for  surveying  certain  tracts  of  their 
lands.     The  anti-proprietary  demonstration,  of  which  this 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  447.  *  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  23,  1742. 

5  Ibid.,  Aug.  24,  1745.  *  Morris  Papers,  p.  270. 


12y]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  127 

was  the  first  during  this  period,  will  be  treated  at  length  in  a 
subsequent  chapter.  To  cope  with  the  situation,  and  pre- 
vent the  riot  from  becoming  a  rebellion,  the  assembly  was 
urged  to  take  proper  measures. 

On  October  3d  the  house  replied  to  the  governors  com- 
munication.1 The  successful  enactment  of  bills,  which  they 
had  prepared  at  both  Trenton  and  Amboy,  had  been  frus- 
trated by  the  council  or  invalidated  by  prorogation  of  the 
governor.  Confirmed  in  their  former  opinions  by  the  sen- 
timents of  their  constituents,  the  preparation  of  the  desired 
measures  would  be  deferred  until  a  more  favorable  oppor- 
tunity. Recourse  might  be  taken  to  the  militia  act  of  1738, 
still  in  force,  but  any  ill-consequences  due  to  the  militia  of 
the  province  should  be  chargeable  to  those  who  nullified  the 
intentions  of  the  lower  house !  It  was  likewise  the  opinion 
of  the  assembly  that  the  existing  laws,  properly  enforced, 
would  check  the  deplorable  Essex  County  disturbances. 

The  inability  of  the  governor  to  attend  the  session  at  Bur- 
lington, led  him  to  adjourn  the  legislature  to  Trenton,  where 
it  met  on  October  4th.  Suspicious  as  to  the  legality  of  the 
procedure  by  which  they  were  convened  at  Trenton,  the  as- 
sembly asked  the  council  if  the  adjournment  had  been  taken 
by  advice  of  the  council  given  to  Morris.2  With  conscious 
importance,  and  an  awful  sense  of  their  responsibilities,  the 
council  declared  that  advices  given  to  the  governor  were 
private  secrets  of  state,  the  divulgence  of  which  they  were 
bound  to  prevent.  The  desired  information  could  not  be 
given. 

Such  an  answer  was  not  calculated  to  turn  away  wrath. 
Messrs.  Spicer  and  Fisher  were  appointed  to  wait  upon  the 
governor  to  obtain  firsthand  information  regarding  the  im- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  3,  1745. 
1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  451. 


128  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [128 

portant  matter.1  Assembly  messages  must  come  to  him 
through  the  speaker,  thought  Morris,  who  refused  to  re- 
ceive the  two  representatives.  By  this  time,  fully  convinced 
that  the  governor  had  neither  received  nor  asked  the  advice 
of  the  council  upon  the  question  of  the  last  adjournment, 
and  because  of  the  treatment  accorded  their  committee,  the 
assembly  resolved  that  the  refusal  to  receive  their  members 
was  "  a  manifest  denial  of  the  Freedom  of  Access  to  the 
Governor  and  of  the  Privileges  of  this  House,"  and  that  they 
would  proceed  no  further  on  the  public  business  until  they 
were  informed  to  their  satisfaction  under  what  conditions 
they  were  removed  from  Burlington  to  Trenton.2 

After  four  more  days  of  waiting  it  was  resolved  that  the 
detention  of  the  house  for  so  long,  without  being  informed 
as  to  the  business  which  had  brought  them  together,  was 
"  a  great  grievance  to  this  House  in  particular,  and  to  the 
Inhabitants  of  this  Colony  in  general  ".3 

Thereupon  followed  a  typical  lengthy  and  intemperate 
Morris  message.4  Certain  of  the  expressions  of  the  assem- 
bly, the  governor  was  fully  convinced,  might  "  gratify  the 
malicious  temper  of  low  minds,  unacquainted  with  common 
rules  of  decency,  and  incapable  of  anything  above  the  scum 
of  the  people  ".  With  apparent  delight,  Morris  refers  the 
plowmen  representatives,  whom  he  characterizes  as  "  the  in- 
quisitive part  of  mankind  ",  to  Ecclesiasticus,  chapter  38, 
verses  25,  26  and  33,  to  learn  the  part  which  they  might 
expect  to  play  in  public  affairs.  Old  matters  of  dispute 
were  mentioned,  and  the  recent  misunderstandings  reviewed 
at  considerable  length. 

After  such  a  show  of  temper  on  the  part  of  the  governor, 
one  does  not  wonder  that  a  future  assembly  stubbornly  re- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  II,  1745.  %  Ibid.,  Oct.  14,  1745. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1745.  KIbid.,  Oct.  18,  1705. 


12q]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  129 

fused  to  pay  the  Morris  heirs,  the  arrears  of  his  salary. 
Following  the  governor's  long  message,  the  assembly  had 
been  prorogued.  It  was  later  dissolved,  however,  and  a  new 
election  held  for  members  of  the  sixteenth  assembly.  As 
the  election  resulted  in  making  but  two  changes  in  the 
house,  it  scarcely  compensated  the  governor. 

The  regular  meeting  place  for  the  first  session  of  the  six- 
teenth assembly  was  Perth  Amboy,  but  on  account  of  the 
governor's  health  the  legislature  was  prorogued,  on  Febru- 
ary 2d,  to  meet  at  Trenton,  on  February  26th.  Robert 
Lawrence  was  chosen  speaker. 

Just  as  harsh  as  had  been  his  last  message  to  the  former 
assembly,  correspondingly  conciliatory  was  the  governor's 
first  message  to  this  new  house.1  On  March  4,  1746,  Morris 
told  the  assembly  that  their  adjournment  to  Trenton  had 
been  by  advice  of  the  council.  The  unsupported  condition 
of  the  officers  of  government,  the  need  of  defence  against 
the  enemy,  and  the  land  troubles  in  Newark  were  recom- 
mended to  the  consideration  of  the  legislature,  and  despatches 
relating  to  the  French  and  Indians  were  to  be  laid  before 
the  assembly.  An  earnest  plea  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
the  province  was  made,  the  message  concluding  with  the 
expressed  hope  that  "  the  God  of  Peace  direct  your  Consul- 
tations for  the  General  Good  ". 

The  governor's  ill-health  and  the  advice  of  the  council, 
the  assembly  graciously  declared  to  be  sufficient  reason  for 
meeting  at  Trenton.2  Willingness  to  join  with  the  other 
branches  of  government  to  settle  the  militia  and  repel  in- 
vasions and  to  support  the  government  was  expressed.  All 
departments  seemed  disposed  to  act  in  harmony. 

The    Hunterdon    County    representative  complained   on 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  299. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  II,  1746. 


130  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [j^q 

March  13th  that  the  former  grievance  regarding  the  elec- 
tion of  Reed  as  a  loan-office  commissioner,  had  not  been 
rectified.  The  governor  was  asked  to  take  measures  to  re- 
dress the  grievance.1  He  replied  as  before,  however,  that 
if  the  choice  was  illegal,  it  should  be  determined  by  the 
courts.  Nevertheless  he  promised  to  obtain  the  attorney  gen- 
eral's opinion,  and  ask  the  advice  of  the  council.  This 
promise  doubtless  appeased  the  ardor  of  the  house  for  the 
time  being. 

An  act  for  better  settling  and  regulating  the  militia  was 
passed  by  both  houses,  and  received  the  governor's  assent 
on  May  8,  1746.2  The  favorite  measures  of  the  assembly 
were  also  passed  by  that  body,  namely,  the  J>ill  to  prevent 
actions  under  £15  being  brought  into  the  Supreme  Court, 
to  emit  £40,000  in  paper  money,  and  to  oblige  sheriffs  to 
give  security.  A  bargain  could  not  be  struck  regarding  the 
support  act,  and  the  harmony  of  the  session  was  abruptly 
ended.  On  May  6th  the  assembly  having  promised  to  sup- 
port the  government  if  the  governor  would  assent  to  the 
bills  they  had  passed,  Morris  agreed  to  assent  if  they  would 
support.3  The  less  exacting  attitude  of  Morris  is  apparent 
at  this  time,  because  he  confessed  at  the  time  that  on  account 
of  illness,  he  had  been  able  to  read  only  the  militia  act. 
His  promise  to  assent  to  the  assembly  bills,  in  exchange  for 
support,  was  evidently  made  before  he  had  examined  the 
acts. 

The  following  day  the  governor  received  a  message  from 
the  lower  house,  with  the  terms  upon  which  the  govern- 
ment would  be  supported.  The  governor's  salary  was 
halved  for  two  years,  but  Morris  or  his  executors  were  to 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  1796. 

'Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  139. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  May  6,  1746. 


131]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  j$i 

receive  £1,000  from  the  first  interest  money  arising  out  of 
the  £40,000  emission,  if  the  royal  assent  should  be  given. 
These  conditions  proved  unattractive  to  the  governor,  and 
on  May  8th  he  assented  only  to  the  militia  act.  Morris's 
last  illness,  which  resulted  in  his  death  on  May  21,  1746, 
doubtless  saved  the  life  of  this  assembly.1 

From  May  9th  the  assembly  had  met  and  adjourned 
from  day  to  day  until  June  4th,  when  President  Hamilton, 
who  had  succeeded  Morris,  prorogued  the  legislature  to 
June  nth.  His  address  of  the  ensuing  day  especially  recom- 
mended the  Canada  expedition  to  the  consideration  of  the 
council  and  assembly.2  Both  branches  of  the  legislature 
responded  with  alacrity  to  provide  New  Jersey's  share  of 
men  and  money  for  the  expedition  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
try. Acts  were  passed  in  June,  1746,  to  encourage  the  en- 
listing of  500  volunteers,  and  to  make  current  £10,000  in 
bills  of  credit  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  forces.  Sub- 
sequent acts  were  passed  in  November,  1746,  and  May, 
1747,  to  further  provide  for  the  troops. 

In  regard  to  the  land  disturbances  that  continued  to 
plague  the  colony,  President  Hamilton  was  as  unsuccessful 
in  securing  the  co-operation  of  the  assembly  as  Governor 
Morris  had  been.  To  guard  against  the  ill-will  of  the  king, 
they  were  urged  to  check  the  lawless  spirit  in  certain  sections 
of  the  province.  But  only  the  Canadian  expedition  re- 
ceived favorable  action  during  this  administration  of  Presi- 
dent Hamilton. 

There  were  three  sessions  of  the  legislature  during  Ham- 
ilton's administration,  all  at  Perth  Amboy.  The  second 
sitting  of  the  sixteenth  assembly  ended  on  June  20,  1746. 
The  next  meeting  continued  from  October  9th  to  November 

1  Morris  papers ,  p .  311. 

J  Assembly  Journal,  June  12,  1746. 


I32  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [132 

1  st,  when  the  assembly  was  dismissed  upon  their  own  de- 
sire. In  May,  1747,  the  legislature  was  called  together  to 
provide  for  the  support  of  government,  to  continue  the 
supply  of  the  troops  in  Canada,  and  to  consider  the  dis- 
ordered condition  of  the  colony  on  account  of  the  anti-pro- 
prietary outbreaks.1  The  only  business  consummated,  how- 
ever, was  to  grant  a  further  supply  for  the  New  Jersey 
forces. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  May  6,  1747. 


CHAPTER  V 

Legislative  History — The  Belcher  and  Franklin 
Administrations 

The  next  governor,  Jonathan  Belcher,  met  the  legislature 
for  a  brief  session  on  August  20,  1747.  The  assembly  was 
told,  in  the  opening  address,  of  the  new  royal  appointee's 
pleasure  at  coming  to  "  this  fine  flourishing  Province  'V 
That  the  representatives  would,  in  accordance  with  their 
privilege  and  duty,  grant  a  proper  support  to  the  govern- 
ment, the  optimistic  Belcher  had  no  reason  to  doubt.  The 
confusion  into  which  the  province  had  been  thrown  because 
of  the  audacious  attempts  of  seditious  persons  to  subvert  the 
government  was  deplored.  To  combat  against  this  spirit 
was  the  evident  duty  of  governor,  council  and  assembly, 
and  having  restored  peace  to  the  colony,  future  genera- 
tions would  rise  up  and  call  them  blessed.  A  beautiful  ideal, 
but  under  the  circumstances,  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  of 
attainment,  was  pictured  to  the  lawmakers  of  colonial  New 
Jersey.  The  governor  promised  to  make  this  session  short, 
if  it  so  pleased  the  legislature. 

Both  houses  returned  "  handsome "  addresses  to  His 
Excellency's  speech.  The  council  was  heartily  pleased  with 
favorable  sentiments  which  augured  so  much  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  people,  and  promised  to  strengthen  Belcher's 
hands  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability.2  The  enthusiasm  of 
the  assembly's  response  must  have  gladdened  Belcher's} 
1  eart.     No  detail  of  the  governor's  address  remained  unan- 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  19.  2 Ibid.,  p.  23. 

133)  133 


■, 


I34  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [1^4 

swered.1  Joy  at  his  safe  arrival  was  expressed  and  abundant 
promises  were  made.  The  exuberance  which  led  them  to 
state  that  it  was  "  morally  impossible  "  for  the  New  Jersey 
paper  money  to  sink  in  value,  was  doubtless  a  result  of  the 
general  enthusiasm  which  led  them  into  mistaken  particu- 
lars. A  short  session  was  declared  to  be  eminently  ac- 
ceptable at  this  time,  but  not  simply  for  the  convenience  of 
the  assembly  members.  With  proper  solicitude,  such  a 
course  was  declared  to  be  desirable  in  order  that  their  hon- 
ored governor  might  "  have  some  time  of  Ease  from  the 
Fatigues  which  so  long  a  Voyage  at  Sea,  and  a  Journey 
from  Perth  Amboy  to  this  Place,  must  occasion."  The 
legislature  was  in  session  at  Burlington. 

The  session  lasted  but  five  days,  and  the  only  business 
transacted  aside  from  the  preparation  of  congratulatory 
addresses,  was  the  appointment  of  a  conference  committee 
by  each  house  to  consider  ways  and  means  for  suppressing 
the  riots  and  disorders  in  the  colony.2  This  committee  did 
not  meet  until  the  November  session  of  the  legislature. 

The  sixth  sitting  of  the  sixteenth  assembly  began  at  Bur- 
lington on  November  17,  1747,  and  continued  to  February 
18,  1748.  The  favorable  opportunity  for  enacting  many 
measures  opposed  by  Morris  had  at  length  come  to  the  as- 
sembly. Since  December,  1743,  the  only  laws  that  had  been 
passed,  except  the  act  to  encourage  the  destruction  of  crows 
and  the  naturalization  act  of  1744,  had  been  in  connection 
with  military  affairs.  Now,  after  the  long  and  bitter  con- 
flicts with  Morris,  legislation  was  resumed,  and  the  assem- 
bly brought  in  all  their  favorite  measures. 

The  governor  addressed  the  legislature  on  November  19, 
1747,  bringing  to  their  attention  four  important  subjects.8 

XN.  J.  A.y  vol.  vii,  p.  25.  r  Ibid.,    vol.  xv,  p.  530. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  67. 


r35]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  ^5 

An  expedition  against  Canada,  sponsored  by  Shirley,  had 
been  postponed,  but  the  colony  was  expected  by  the  king 
to  continue  providing  for  the  troops  already  in  the  Canadian 
service,  with  the  promise  of  an  ultimate  reimbursement  by 
Parliament.  The  perpetrators  of  the  violent  outrages  aris- 
ing from  the  land  controversies  should  be  punished.  Some 
counterfeit  Jersey  bills  having  been  sent  to  the  governor 
by  a  Rhode  Island  magistrate,  Belcher  was  confirmed  in  the 
opinion  that  there  existed  a  wicked  combination  of  villains 
engaged  in  forging  Jersey  money.  This  matter  certainly 
deserved  a  careful  inquiry.  The  last  recommendation  was 
that  the  officers  of  government  should  be  paid  without  un- 
reasonable delay. 

It  was  not  until  January  7,  1748,  and  after  the  support 
bill  and  other  measures  had  passed  the  assembly,  that  the 
lower  house  answered  the  governor's  speech  of  the  preced- 
ing November.1  The  support  bill  had  been  dutifully  passed, 
but  the  assembly  regretted  that  the  colony  was  in  no  condi- 
tion to  act  as  generously  as  their  inclination  tempted  them 
to  do  in  connection  with  supplying  the  forces.  The  riotous 
disturbances  in  the  colony  were  under  consideration,  and 
it  was  the  assembly's  opinion  that  unusual  vigilance  on  the 
part  of  the  attorney  general  and  other  officers  would  be  the 
most  suitable  expedient  against  counterfeiting. 

Relations  between  the  council  and  assembly  were  strained 
when  the  support  act  was  under  consideration.  The  coun- 
cil's demand  for  certain  vouchers  in  connection  with  sev- 
eral accounts  in  the  act  started  the  trouble.2  On  January  1, 
1748,  the  assembly  began  the  New  Year  by  enunciating  the 
favorite  doctrine  of  their  absolute  control  of  the  public 
money.  With  extreme  frankness  it  was  declared  to  be  solely 
the  assembly's  privilege  to  judge  of  the  proper  expenditures 
in  the  public  service. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  574.  *  Ibid.,  p.  565. 


136  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [136 

The  council  claimed  as  their  undoubted  right  the  power 
to  propose,  alter,  or  amend  any  money  bill.1  This  right  was 
especially  theirs  in  the  present  case,  where  the  question  was 
declared  to  be  simply  the  application  of  money  given  to 
the  king  by  former  laws  of  the  colony.  Letters  from  the 
lords  of  trade  were  cited  as  evidence  of  the  propriety  and 
legality  of  their  contention.  Anxious  to  restore  the  peace 
of  the  province,  the  council  decided  to  wait  for  a  more 
favorable  season  before  exerting  this  right.  Meanwhile, 
this  condescension  on  their  part  was  not  to  be  interpreted  as 
a  precedent ! 

The  governor  objected  to  the  support  bill,  because  it  did 
not  settle  upon  him  a  yearly  salary  as  suggested  by  the 
king.2  After  the  assembly  refused  to  alter  the  act,  how- 
ever, it  received  Belcher's  assent. 

An  expedition  under  General  Shirley  having  been  planned 
against  Crown  Point,  the  governor  sent  a  message  to  the 
assembly,  on  January  19,  1748,  urging  that  aid  should  be 
given  to  the  plan.3  To  defend  the  colonies  and  to  secure 
the  fidelity  of  the  Six  Nations  were  plans  which  the  house 
felt  disposed  to  encourage.  But  this  scheme  of  Shirley's 
seemed  new  and  extraordinary,  and  they  could  furnish  the 
governments  concerned  nothing  more  substantial  than  best 
wishes  for  the  success  of  the  enterprise. 

The  conference  committee  upon  ways  and  means  to  sup- 
press the  riots  met  after  much  difficulty  and  drew  up  a  state- 
ment of  facts  bearing  upon  the  disorders.  But  only  patient 
persistence  on  the  part  of  the  council  brought  about  the  de- 
sired conference.  The  assembly  had  displayed  suspicious 
aptitude  for  excusing  the  non-appearance  of  their  committee, 
and  although  the  first  meeting  of  the  two  committees  in  joint 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  635. 

''Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  17,  1748.  *  Ibid.,  Jan.  19,  1748. 


I37]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  137 

session  was  fixed  for  November  30th,  it  was  December  10th 
before  it  was  held.1  A  direct  result  of  the  conference  was  a 
resolution  passed  by  both  houses  declaring  it  dangerous  and 
an  infringement  upon  the  privileges  of  the  legislature  for 
any  number  of  persons  to  assemble  in  a  riotous  manner  in 
order  to  lay  petitions  before  either  the  council  or  assem- 
bly.2 Each  house  entered  into  a  separate  resolution  against 
riotous  petitioning.  This  action  had  been  taken  because  a 
mob  at  Trenton  had  threatened  to  proceed  to  Burlington  to 
lay  grievances  before  the  assembly.8 

At  this  session  also  two  acts  were  passed  designed  to 
check  the  growing  disorders.  One  was  "  an  Act  for  the 
suppressing  and  preventing  of  Riots,  Tumults  and  other 
Disorders  ".4  Two  earlier  attempts,  in  May  and  August, 
1747,  had  failed  to  secure  the  enactment  of  this  measure. 
The  disorders  had  increased  so  alarmingly  that  no  diffi- 
culty in  passing  the  bill  was  experienced  at  this  session.  It 
received  the  governor's  assent  February  18,  1748.  On  the 
same  day  Belcher  assented  to  "  an  Act  to  pardon  the  per- 
sons guilty  of  the  Insurrections,  Riots,  Tumults  and  other 
Disorders,  raised  and  committed  in  this  Province/' 8  This 
act  was  of  questionable  utility,  for  very  few  of  the  disturbers 
availed  themselves  of  the  royal  pardon. 

The  legislature  also  passed  a  bill  to  punish  coiners  and 
counterfeiters  of  foreign  coins  and  of  the  provincial  bills 
of  credit.0  It  was  disallowed  by  the  royal  authorities  No- 
vember 23,  1749.7 

This  had  been  a  long  but  profitable  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture.    Nineteen  acts  were  passed,  among  them  some  that 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  pp.  539,  545,  553-  %Ibid.,  p.  559- 

5  Ibid.,  p.  551.  *  Ibid.,  p.  634. 

*Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  171. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  572.  7 Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  305. 


138  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [138 

had  been  most  stubbornly  opposed  by  Morris,  and  had  led 
him  to  use  harsh  language  freely  against  the  representatives. 
Besides  those  already  mentioned,  the  act  to  prevent  actions 
under  £15  in  the  Supreme  Court,  the  act  to  oblige  sheriffs 
to  give  security  for  the  discharge  of  their  office  and  the  act 
to  erect  Cumberland  County,  were  passed. 

Three  bills  were  enacted  with  suspending  clauses.  Al- 
though Belcher  recommended  that  favorable  action  be  taken 
upon  all  of  them  by  the  English  officials,  only  one  was  al- 
lowed, that  regulating  the  fees  to  be  taken  in  the  colony. 
The  bill  to  emit  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit  was  disallowed, 
and  also  the  one  for  running  the  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  boundary  line.  Opposition  to  the  latter  bill  on  the 
part  of  New  York  led  to  its  disallowance.  The  troublesome 
boundary  dispute  between  these  two  neighboring  colonies 
will  be  considered  in  detail  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 

On  February  18,  1748,  Governor  Belcher  prorogued  the 
legislature.1  The  council  and  assembly  were  congratulated 
because  of  the  unanimity  that  had  characterized  their  delib- 
erations and  the  success  that  had  attended  their  efforts.  The 
governor  too  hoped  that  the  rioters  would  avail  themselves 
of  the  lenity  of  the  act  of  pardon. 

It  had  become  usual,  although  not  without  exception,  for 
elections  to  be  held  for  a  new  assembly  upon  the  accession 
of  a  governor.  This  had  not  been  done  when  Belcher  began 
his  administration,  and  after  the  long  session  which  ended 
in  February,  1748,  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  dissolution  be- 
came evident.  On  the  other  hand,  an  election  was  opposed 
at  this  time,  because  of  the  disturbed  condition  of  the 
province.2  The  latter  view,  which  was  held  by  the  pro- 
prietary interests,  prevailed  and  two  more  sittings  of  the 
sixteenth  assembly  were  held. 

XN.  J.  A.y  vol.  vii,  p,  104.  *  Ibid.,  p.  122. 


I39]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  139 

Governor  Belcher  sent  a  message  to  the  legislature  on 
July  7,  1748,  the  day  it  had  convened  at  Burlington.  The 
business  which  was  at  this  time  recommended  was  the  ap- 
pointment of  commissioners  to  represent  the  colony  at  an 
Indian  Conference  at  Albany.1  For  this  one  purpose  only 
had  the  legislature  been  called  together.  New  Jersey  had 
not  heretofore  united  with  other  colonies  in  Indian  confer- 
ences, and  the  assembly,  wishing  the  proposed  conference 
well,  refrained  from  sending  delegates.2 

The  last  session  of  the  sixteenth  assembly  was  begun  at 
Burlington  on  October  21st.  The  governor's  health,  now 
impaired  by  old  age,  did  not  allow  of  his  meeting  the  legis- 
lature at  Perth  Amboy,  and  the  council  had  advised  in  favor 
of  Burlington.  Exaggerated  regard  for  prerogative  led 
several  representatives  to  express  the  pronounced  opinion 
that  the  sittings  should  be  held  at  Perth  Amboy.  In  defer- 
ence to  this  sentiment,  the  General  Assembly  was  adjourned, 
October  25th,  to  meet  at  Amboy  on  the  tenth  of  the  follow- 
ing month.8 

The  governor  had  addressed  the  legislature  upon  the 
opening  day  of  the  session  at  Burlington.*  After  reference 
had  been  made  to  the  reason  for  holding  the  session  there, 
the  two  important  subjects  mentioned  were  the  support  of 
government  and  the  continued  nefarious  operations  of  the 
counterfeiters. 

It  was  not  until  after  the  adjournment  to  Perth  Amboy 
that  the  assembly  returned  an  answer  to  the  opening  speech.0 
Their  humble  address  presented  on  November  16th  re- 
ferred to  the  governor's  willing  accession  to  the  request  for 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  149. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  July  8,  1748. 

*Z6id„  Oct.  25,  1748.  *  Ibid.  Oct.  21,  1748. 

%N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  2. 


I4o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [140 

an  adjournment  as  demonstrative  of  his  justice  and  upright- 
ness. The  promise  to  consider  the  financial  necessities  of 
the  province  was  made,  but  ambiguity  and  uncertainty 
characterized  their  attitude  toward  counterfeiting.  The 
wicked  practice  was  regretted,  it  was  hoped  that  the  coun- 
terfeiters would  be  punished,  but  the  house  avoided  men- 
tioning any  role  which  it  might  be  expected  to  play.  As 
the  last  session  was  long,  the  assembly  hoped  that  this  one 
would  be  short. 

Both  branches  of  the  legislature  applied  themselves  to  the 
consideration  of  the  public  business,  but  not  to  what  had 
been  recommended  by  the  governor.  That  was  in  large 
part  due  to  the  unqualified  rejection  by  the  assembly  of 
amendments  which  the  council  had  made  to  an  act  to  enable 
the  legislature  to  settle  the  quotas  as  levied  upon  the  coun- 
ties.1 The  lack  of  consideration  which  the  legislature  had 
accorded  his  recommendations  drew  from  Belcher  a  second 
message.2  Counterfeiting  and  the  support  of  government 
claimed  only  a  portion  of  the  communication.  The  renewal 
of  land  disturbances  in  Essex  County  led  the  governor  to 
earnestly  plead  for  the  institution  of  such  effectual  measures 
as  would  restore  order. 

The  proprietary  influence  of  the  council  was  engendering 
the  opposition  of  the  popular  tendencies  of  the  lower  house. 
The  tide  of  popular  feeling  against  the  proprietors  was  so 
intense  at  this  time  that  it  was  inevitably  reflected  in  the 
representative  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  It  was  of 
course  not  a  mere  accidental  coincidence  that  the  coiners 
of  false  money  plied  their  trade  most  industriously  when 
the  land  troubles  were  most  pronounced.  Consequently  the 
attitude  of  the  assembly  toward  both  counterfeiting  and 
rioting  was  the  same.     The  lower  house  professed  mistrust 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  24.  ' Ibid.,  p.  25. 


I4l]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  141 

of  many  officials  who  executed  the  laws,  who  were  to  bring 
offenders  under  the  law  to  justice.  Not  only  to  be  con- 
sistent, but  also  as  an  added  opportunity  to  evince  opposi- 
tion to  distasteful  office-holders,  the  office-holders  and  not 
the  laws  were  declared  to  be  at  fault. 

Under  the  circumstances  a  conflict  between  the  two  houses 
was  inevitable.  The  council's  address  to  the  governor 
stated  that  instead  of  any  laxity  on  their  part  as  regarded 
the  counterfeiters,  a  council  committee  had  vigorously  in- 
vestigated the  subject,  and  new  laws  would  be  proposed.1 
Upon  this  subject,  the  assembly  regarded  the  proper  execu- 
tion of  the  existing  laws  a  sufficient  obstruction  to  all  of- 
fenders.2 Quite  naturally  no  legislation  against  counter- 
feiting was  enacted  at  this  session. 

The  land  riots,  however,  provoked  the  most  serious  divi- 
sion in  the  legislature.  To  secure  proper  remedies  upon  this 
head  was  not  only  a  part  of  the  council's  public  duty,  but  in 
addition  was  a  concern  in  which  the  majority  was  person- 
ally interested.  The  governor  was  asked  by  the  council  not 
to  end  the  session  until  adequate  remedies  had  been  pro- 
posed.8 Existing  laws  against  the  rioters  should  be  more 
properly  executed,  repeated  the  assembly.4  If  a  proper 
test  proved  their  inefficiency,  additional  laws  would  be  con- 
sidered at  the  next  session. 

Reflections  against  some  of  the  officers  of  government 
were  discovered  by  the  council  in  the  reply  of  the  assembly 
to  the  governor's  address.5  The  council  declared  that  the 
disorders  in  several  counties  prevented  the  administration 
of  justice.  Authority  should  be  given  to  the  governor  to 
issue  commissions,  whenever  necessary,  for  holding  trials 
outside  of  the  counties  in  which  crimes  were  committed. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  37.  *Ibid.,  p.  41. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  38.  *  Ibid.,  p.  43.  6 Ibid.,  p.  47. 


142  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [142 

The  legislature  should  supply  funds  for  maintaining  troops 
to  strengthen  the  government. 

The  assembly  would  join  in  no  legislation,  but  declared 
the  assumption  of  the  council  to  direct  the  methods  of  rais- 
ing money  an  infringement  upon  the  rights  of  the  lower 
house.1  Accusing  the  representatives  of  neglecting  their 
duty,  the  council  resolved  to  lay  the  condition  of  the  colony 
before  the  king.2  Several  curt  resolves  were  then  sent  to 
the  assembly  in  answer  to  their  blunt  refusal  to  join  in  any 
measures  with  the  council. 

The  same  day,  December  16th,  Belcher  assented  to  six 
acts  and  prorogued  the  legislature  to  meet  at  Burlington 
on  February  16,  1749.3 

An  unusual  and  novel  incident  happened  immediately 
after  the  governor  had  prorogued  the  council.  That  body 
offered  to  give  the  chief  executive  advice,  but  received  the 
unexpected  reply  that  advice  would  be  asked  for  when 
wanted.4  A  communication  was  sent  to  the  governor  on 
December  22,  1748,  however,  containing  the  advice  which 
the  council  had  been  so  brusquely  prevented  from  offering.5 

The  avowed  disagreement  between  the  governor  and  his 
council  at  this  time  had  more  an  apparent  than  a  real  in- 
fluence. Belcher  had  consistently  maintained  an  impartial 
attitude  in  the  land  difficulties  and  continued  to  believe  that 
the  troublesome  question  could  be  decided  without  an  appeal 
to  the  home  officials.  It  was  this  optimism  which,  if  per- 
haps misdirected,  was  none  the  less  sincere,  that  led  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  sixteenth  assembly.  The  new  assembly, 
though  changed  somewhat  in  personnel,  exemplified  the 
same  spirit  as  the  preceding  house.6    The  first  session  of  the 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  64.  2Ibid.,  p.  65.  *  Ibid.,  p.  68. 

4 Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  183.  6 Ibid.,  p,  185. 

•There  were  seven  new  members. 


I43]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  143 

seventeenth  assembly  began  at  Burlington,   February  20, 

1749. 

Governor  Belchers  address  repeated  his  sentiments  upon 
the  distressed  condition  of  the  colony.1  To  his  message, 
the  assembly  replied  that  the  choice  of  representatives  to 
this  assembly  demonstrated  the  satisfaction  of  the  people 
with  what  had  formerly  been  done.2  Confidence  was  ex- 
pressed that  the  governor,  having  no  private  claims  in  the 
colony,  would  not  be  induced  to  deviate  from  the  impartiality 
heretofore  shown  in  his  administration. 

The  assembly  during  the  session  advocated  extending  a 
second  offer  of  pardon  to  repenting  evil-doers,  but  punish- 
ments, not  pardons,  were  what  the  council  planned  for  the 
rioters,  and  a  conference  with  the  assembly  was  refused.3 
Belcher's  faith  in  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  dispute 
by  the  legislature  was  shattered;  his  patience  was  over- 
come. On  March  28th  the  legislature  was  prorogued,  and 
the  governor  later  asked  for  special  orders  from  the  king, 
because  the  assembly  refused  to  raise  money  to  protect  the 
jails.4 

At  this  session  the  dispute  over  the  quotas  act  was  con- 
tinued. The  contention  in  respect  to  this  measure  involved 
the  question  of  the  taxation  of  unprofitable  lands.  Accord- 
ing to  the  bill,  "  the  whole  of  all  profitable  tracts  of  Land, 
held  by  Patent  Deed  or  Survey  whereon  any  improvement  is 
made  "  was  made  taxable.5  The  council  refused  to  pass  the 
bill  unless  the  declaration  was  clearly  made  that  nothing 
in  the  act  was  intended  to  conflict  with  the  royal  instruction 
that  no  unprofitable  lands  should  be  taxed.  This  was  a  vital 
concern  to  the  councillors,  most  of  whom  were  large  pro- 
prietary landholders. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  21,  1749. 

J /did.,  Feb.  25,  1749.  s Ibid.,  Mar.  21,  23,  1749. 

4N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  249.  6 Ibid.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  135. 


i44  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [I44 

Having  been  sent  to  the  council,  after  it  had  passed  the 
assembly,  the  bill  was  amended  to  coincide  with  the  opinion 
of  the  councillors,  and  returned  to  the  lower  house.  That 
the  objectionable  portion  of  the  measure  did  not  conflict 
with  the  governor's  instructions  was  strongly  maintained 
by  the  assembly.  Even  so  the  governor  might  be  left  to 
judge  as  to  the  worth  of  the  bill,  and  no  alteration  which 
so  nearly  affected  the  precious  privileges  of  the  people  could 
be  tolerated.  The  lower  house  refused  to  so  much  as  confer 
with  the  council  upon  the  subject. 

It  was  specious  arguing  which  urged  that  the  governor 
should  be  the  proper  judge  when  the  houses  disagreed  upon 
a  measure,  and  a  course  of  conduct  to  which  the  assembly 
would  have  been  the  last  to  subscribe  as  a  fixed  principle. 
The  object  in  view,  however,  to  shoulder  the  council  with 
the  responsibility  for  the  continued  failure  of  the  act,  was 
easily  accomplished.  Facetious  in  the  extreme  was  the  as- 
sumption that  when  the  governor  and  council  were  at  odds, 
the  latter  would  submit  such  an  important  measure  solely 
to  the  judgment  of  the  former.  The  words  in  the  act  to 
which  the  council  objected  do  not  appear  to  conflict  with  the 
royal  instruction.  Had  the  assembly  been  entirely  sincere, 
the  council  amendment  in  itself  could  not  have  been  ob- 
jectionable, for  it  would  not  have  altered  the  meaning  of 
the  act,  unless  it  were  repugnant  to  the  royal  instruction. 
The  real  object  the  lower  house  had  in  view  was  to  prevent 
the  council  from  amending  the  bill. 

On  September  25,  1749,  the  council  and  assembly  met  at 
Perth  Amboy  for  the  second  session  of  the  seventeenth  as- 
sembly. Samuel  Nevill  was  re-elected  speaker.  The  gov- 
ernor's address  was  delivered  three  days  after  the  opening 
of  the  session. 

Although  he  had  represented  the  condition  of  the  province 
to   King   George,    Governor   Belcher  hoped   the  assembly 


I45]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  145 

might  yet  take  action  that  they  might  not  suffer  severely 
for  their  misconduct.1  An  empty  treasury,  no  support  hav- 
ing been  granted  at  the  previous  sitting,  testified  to  the 
financial  needs  of  the  government.  Harmony  was  recom- 
mended, that  the  session  might  be  brief.  With  the  consid- 
eration of  the  quotas  act  and  the  support  bill,  harmony  van- 
ished. An  attempt  to  pass  the  former  measure  was  a  repe- 
tition of  the  quarrel  of  the  last  session.  The  council 
amended  the  act  as  before;  the  assembly  refused  a  confer- 
ence, and  each  house  accused  the  other  of  obstructing  the 
desired  legislation.2 

The  council's  efforts  to  amend  the  bill  for  the  support  of 
government  also  resulted  disastrously.  But  more  than  the 
control  of  the  purse  was  involved  in  this  particular  sup- 
port act.  According  to  the  council,  provision  not  only  for 
the  payment  of  the  colonial  agent  in  England,  but  for  his 
appointment  also,  was  made  in  this  bill.3  As  long  as  the 
assembly  denied  the  right  of  the  council  to  amend  a  money 
bill,  the  council's  assent  to  this  particular  support  act  would 
have  carried  with  it  the  implication  that  the  lower  house 
had  the  sole  right  to  nominate  the  colonial  agent.  There- 
fore the  council  amended  the  bill,  so  as  to  overcome  the  ob- 
jectionable portions.  The  amended  bill  was  rejected  by 
the  assembly,  and  the  governor  was  notified  that  if  the  gov- 
ernment could  be  supported  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  peo- 
ple's privileges,  the  support  would  not  be  granted.4  And  it 
was  not  granted. 

An  interesting  reminder  of  Governor  Morris's  admin- 
istration was  last  considered  at  this  session.  The  quarrels 
near  the  end  of  his  administration  had  left  the  government 
unsupported  from  September  23,  1744,  to  his  death  in  1746. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  157.  2 /did.,  p.  185  et  seq. 

1  /did.,  p.  196.  *  /bid.,  p.  205. 


I46  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [146 

His  widow  petitioned  the  New  Jersey  assembly,  in  1747, 
for  the  salary  arrears  of  the  former  governor  and  for  the 
money  that  had  been  expended  for  house  rent  during  that 
period.1  The  house  rent  was  allowed,  but  the  salary  was 
refused  by  a  vote  of  20  to  2.2 

The  Morris  executors  having  petitioned  the  lords  of 
trade  to  act  in  their  favor,  Belcher  was  ordered  to  require 
of  the  assembly  the  payment  of  the  arrears.3  In  a  message 
of  October  5,  1749,  the  governor  recommended  the  subject 
to  the  consideration  of  the  representatives.  On  October 
17th  the  assembly  answered  the  governor's  message.4  Their 
reply  was  a  review  of  the  grievances  which  they  had  come 
to  cherish  against  their  departed  governor.  His  abuse  of 
the  powers  of  government  was  boldly  proclaimed.  It  was 
claimed  that  none  in  the  colony,  save  those  personally  inter- 
ested, favored  considering  this  a  just  debt.  By  a  vote  of 
19  to  1  the  house  resolved  that  no  just  debt  was  due  to 
Morris.5 

The  council  was  convinced  that  no  further  application  on 
the  part  of  the  governor  would  alter  the  decision  of  the 
house,  and  advised  him  accordingly.6  Belcher  wrote  to 
the  lords  of  trade  of  the  refusal  of  the  assembly.7  The  repre- 
sentatives themselves  sent  a  memorial  to  the  lords  stating 
that  the  governor  lost  his  salary  only  because  of  his  ob- 
stinacy in  not  accepting  it  as  the  assembly  chose  to  grant 
it.8     Although  the  lords  of  trade  thought  this  conduct  was 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  30,  1787. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  17,  1747.  The  negative  votes  were  cast  to 
Nevill  and  Kearney. 

%  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  173.  *Ibid.,  p.  335. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  4,  1749.  Dr.  Johnston  voted  negatively. 

<N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  343.  ''Ibid.,  p.  363. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  11,  1749. 


I47]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  147 

"  indecent  and  disrespectfull  to  His  Majesty,"  with  which 
sentiments  Belcher  felt  called  upon  to  agree,  the  assembly 
never  paid  the  bill.1  The  last  that  is  heard  of  the  affair  is 
Chief  Justice  Morris's  petition  to  the  lords  of  trade,  in 
May,  1750.  to  grant  relief  for  the  unpaid  arrears.2 

The  assembly  had  requested  a  dismissal  at  the  same  time 
that  the  governor  had  been  apprized  of  the  failure  of  the 
support  act.  On  October  20th  the  legislature  was  prorogued 
to  meet  at  Burlington  on  the  last  day  of  the  next  month. 

It  was  the  thirteenth  of  the  following  February,  how- 
ever, before  the  legislature  was  again  convened.  The  gov- 
ernor's brief  message  deplored  the  strife  and  contention  of 
the  last  session,  urged  that  the  legislature  join  with  the  gov- 
ernor to  suppress  the  tumults,  and  reminded  them  "  that  the 
Body  Politic  can  no  more  subsist  without  Proper  Provision 
for  its  Support,  than  the  Body  Natural  can  live  without 
what  is  necessary  to  continue  it  in  being  ".8 

Whatever  strife  and  contention  there  had  been  in  the 
previous  session  resulted,  so  the  assembly  told  the  governor 
on  February  22d,  from  the  attempts  of  the  council  to  in- 
fringe upon  the  liberties  of  the  lower  house.4  As  the  cases 
of  several  rioters  were  under  prosecution,  the  assembly  was 
not  disposed  to  take  any  action  in  connection  with  the  land 
troubles.  The  persistence  of  the  council  in  clinging  to  the 
false  supposition  that  they  could  alter  a  money  bill  ac- 
counted for  the  starvation  of  the  body  politic,  was  the  retort 
of  the  representatives  to  the  governor. 

Nor  was  the  empty  treasury  replenished  at  this  time. 
For  the  fifth  successive  session  a  bill  to  settle  the  quotas 
was  passed  by  the  house,  and  amended  by  the  council,  only 

1  Belcher  Papers,  Feb.  1,  1750. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  401.  *  /did.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  210. 

4 Ibid.,  p.  215. 


I48  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [148 

to  be  rejected  by  the  house.  The  assembly  was  effectually 
discouraged  from  attempting  any  further  legislation  and 
asked  for  an  adjournment.  Regretting  the  necessity  of  such 
a  course,  Belcher  adjourned  the  legislature  on  February 
27th.1 

A  short  but  unsuccessful  session  was  held  at  Perth 
Amboy  from  September  20  to  October  8,  1750.  Belcher's 
speech  on  the  24th  of  September  had  repeated  the  plea  for 
the  support  of  government.2  The  dutiful  assembly  was 
aware  of  the  evil  consequences  of  an  unsupported  govern- 
ment, but  had  repeatedly  tried  to  fill  the  treasury. a  They 
promised  to  try  again,  but  met  with  no  better  success.  The 
only  act  passed  at  this  session  was  for  the  purpose  of  natur- 
alizing five  persons.4 

The  case  of  five  Burlington  county  justices  was  an  added 
irritant  at  this  time.5  Robert  Smith,  Joseph  Scattergood, 
Revell  Elton,  Thomas  Shinn  and  Nathaniel  Thomas  had 
raised  money  without  the  authority  of  a  majority  of  the 
proper  freeholders.  Elton,  Thomas  and  Shinn,  when  ex- 
amined by  the  lower  house,  promised  to  reform,  paid  their 
fees,  and  were  dismissed.  Smith  and  Scattergood  did  not 
satisfy  the  assembly  as  to  their  future  conduct  and  the  gov- 
ernor was  asked  to  remove  them.  The  two  unbending 
justices,  having  even  refused  to  pay  the  fees  to  the  assem- 
bly for  having  been  summoned,  were  entrusted  to  the  cus- 
tody of  the  sergeant-at-arms.6 

The  governor  asked  the  council  for  advice  regarding  the 
removal  of  Smith  and  Scattergood.  On  March  1,  1750, 
the  upper  house  declared  that  the  assembly  had  assumed  un- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  27,  1750.  %  Ibid-.,  Sept.  24,  1750. 

*  Ibid.,  Oct.  3,  1750. 

4Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  189.  bN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  221. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  26,  1750. 


I49]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  I49 

warrantable  authority  in  censuring,  imprisoning  and  tax- 
ing the  justices.1  The  representatives  were  accused  of  at- 
tempting to  seize  power  which  was  lodged  in  the  hands  of 
the  governor,  council  and  assembly.  To  continue  the  jus- 
tices in  office  was  the  advice  given  to  the  governor,  who 
acted  accordingly. 

This  decision  was  announced  to  the  assembly  in  a  mes- 
sage on  October  8,  1750.2  The  only  reason  given  by  the 
governor  for  not  removing  them  was  that  a  royal  order 
prevented  the  removal  of  a  justice  without  the  consent  of 
the  council.  It  might  be  implied,  from  the  wording  of  the 
message,  that  Belcher  would  not  have  continued  Smith  and 
Scattergood  in  office,  had  it  been  prudent  to  ignore  the  ad- 
vice of  the  council.  To  encourage  such  an  implication  might 
have  been  intentional,  as  it  would  certainly  lessen  any  pos- 
sible odium  which  the  nature  of  the  ruling  itself  might 
have  brought  to  the  governor.  It  is  not  evident  what 
Belcher's  personal  attitude  toward  these  justices  was. 

The  fifth  and  last  session  of  the  seventeenth  assembly 
convened  at  Burlington  on  January  24th.  The  tardy  ar- 
rival of  the  councillors  delayed  the  opening  speech  of  the 
governor  until  January  29th.8  Prudent  measures  for  over- 
coming the  recent  obstacles  to  the  support  of  government 
were  advised.  The  king  wished  a  map  of  the  province, 
which  the  governor  believed  should  be  promptly  prepared 
and  sent  to  England.  Clinton's  request  that  New  Jersey 
should  become  a  party  to  an  Indian  conference  at  Albany 
in  June,  1751,  was  seconded  by  Belcher,  who  volunteered 
to  act  as  a  commissioner. 

Before  the  session  was  far  spent  the  assembly  obtained 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  237. 

7  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  8,  1750. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  240. 


I5o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [150 

a  favorable  opportunity  to  attack  the  council  by  opposing  a 
sheriff  befriended  by  the  upper  house.  Complaints  of  alleged 
maltreatment  were  made  by  Joseph  Bonney  against  John 
Riddle,  sheriff  of  Somerset  County.  The  assembly  directed 
their  attack  against  councillor  Leonard  in  particular,  who 
was  accused  of  having  qualified  the  sheriff  before  proper 
oaths  were  taken  and  without  the  payment  of  proper  sure- 
ties.1 The  assembly  passed  grave  resolutions  against  such 
irregularities,  and  petitioned  the  governor  for  redress. 
Leonard,  however,  denied  all  the  allegations  made  against 
him.  The  council  refused  to  censure  a  fellow-member  by 
advising  the  removal  of  Sheriff  Riddle,  and  Belcher  notified 
the  house  that  the  officer  could  not  be  deprived  of  his 
office.2 

The  session  was  occupied  chiefly  with  the  dispute  over 
the  quotas  act,  which  developed  even  more  acumen  and 
temper  than  had  been  formerly  displayed.  The  councillors 
attempted  to  pose  as  the  champions  of  the  poor  against  the 
rich,  a  rather  anomalous  attitude.3  They  feared  that  the  as- 
sembly proposed  to  tax  the  poor  who  lived  on  poor  lands, 
as  much  as  the  rich  who  lived  on  good  lands.  Such  rank 
injustice  could  not  be  tolerated  by  the  council!  It  is  safe 
to  assume  that  it  certainly  would  not  have  been  suggested, 
much  less  supported,  by  the  assembly.  To  the  lower  house, 
the  opposition  to  the  quotas  act  was  due  less  to  the  philan- 
thropic solicitude  of  the  councillors  for  the  poor,  than  to 
the  exemption  of  their  large  estates  from  taxation.4 

Long  messages  and  ponderous  resolves  passed  between 
the  houses,  but  neither  party  could  bring  conviction  to  the 
mind  of  the  other.5  Meanwhile  the  assembly  had  addressed 
the  governor,  on  February  15th,  to  the  effect  that,  as  iong  as 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  9,  1751.  *Ibid.,  Feb.  22,  1751. 

•  N.  J.  A.,vo\.  xvi,  p.  252.        4 Ibid.,  p.  254.         &Zbid.,p.  261,  et  seg. 


I5I]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  151 

the  council  continued  to  amend  the  act  for  settling  the 
quotas,  the  government  would  continue  without  support.1 
Notwithstanding  Belcher's  appeal  that  the  assembly  recede 
somewhat  from  its  position  for  the  sake  of  the  welfare  of 
the  province,  his  listeners  were  obdurate.2 

Friendly  communications  between  the  council  and  assem- 
bly were  broken  off,  and  the  legislature  was  prorogued  on 
February  22,  1751.  Only  one  bill  had  been  passed,  the  act 
to  regulate  the  militia.  Three  days  later  Belcher  issued  a 
proclamation  dissolving  the  General  Assembly.3  The  ne- 
glect to  support  the  government  and  the  open  avowal  on  the 
part  of  the  assembly  that  communication  with  the  council 
had  ended,  made  a  new  choice  of  representatives  necessary. 
It  was  hoped,  said  the  governor,  that  the  new  representa- 
tives would  act  dutifully  and  prudently  in  order  to  avert 
any  possible  resentment  from  the  king  for  the  non-support 
of  his  government  in  New  Jersey. 

The  dissolution  and  prospective  election  was  a  matter  of 
more  than  local  or  ordinary  interest.  Brief  pamphlets  for 
and  against  the  conduct  of  the  assembly  in  the  recent  ses- 
sion were  published  in  the  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
weeklies.4  Novel,  at  least,  was  one  in  the  form  of  a  dia- 
logue between  "  Freeman  ",  a  representative  of  twenty  years 
continuous  service  in  the  New  Jersey  assembly,  and  "  Love- 
truth  ",  one  of  his  constituents.  The  former  furnished 
"  Lovetruth  "  with  what  was  declared  to  be  an  unprejudiced 
and  impartial  account  of  the  dispute  in  the  legislature.  It 
is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  publicity  given  in  this  way 
to  many  facts,  otherwise  less  generally  known,  aided  in  se- 
curing the  salutary  results  of  the  next  session.  The  elec- 
tion resulted  in  the  return  of  eleven  new  members  to  the 
assembly. 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  259.  ' Ibid.,  p.  283. 

•  /bid.,  vol.  xix,  p.  30.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xix,  pp.  13,  34,  50. 


1 52  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [i$2 

On  May  20,  1751,  the  legislature  met  at  Perth  Amboy. 
Charles  Read,  one  of  the  new  delegates  from  the  city  of 
Burlington  and  secretary  of  the  province,  was  elected 
speaker.  The  session  was  brief,  continuing  only  to  June 
7th,  but  the  quotas  act  was  passed  and  the  government  was 
at  length  supported. 

The  governor's  speech  was  brief,  asking  simply  for  sup- 
port and  suggesting  the  wisdom  of  following  the  practise 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  by  first  voting  the  money  for 
the  officers  of  government  and  the  payment  of  public  debts, 
and  then  considering  the  ways  and  means  for  raising  the 
funds.1  Having  passed  the  support  bill,  the  assembly  inti- 
mated to  the  governor  that  he  could  follow  no  better  ex- 
ample than  that  of  the  king  in  redressing  grievances,  and 
would  be  glad  if  Belcher  thought  his  power  not  so  limited 
but  that  he  might  remove  a  justice  without  the  consent  of 
the  council.  The  complaint  of  the  assembly  against  the  gov- 
ernor because  of  a  too  restrictive  interpretation  of  his  powers 
was  unique  indeed. 

The  much-discussed  bill  for  settling  the  quotas  was  passed 
as  the  result  of  a  compromise.  In  the  seven  former  attempts 
to  pass  this  measure  the  council  had  fought  for  a  tax 
levied  upon  the  quality  of  the  land,  the  assembly  for  a  tax 
levied  upon  the  quantity  of  the  land  held  by  any  person. 
The  bill  that  passed  at  this  session  contained  a  declaratory 
clause  that  the  intent  was  to  tax  "  Lands  hereafter  accord- 
ing to  value  in  Quantity  and  Quality  between  limited  sums 
to  be  hereafter  fixed,  and  that  all  land  Purchased  from  a 
larger  .Survey  or  Patent,  shall  be  Esteemed  a  Separate  Tract, 
which  being  the  proper  business  of  a  Taxation  Bill,  was  not 
Explained  by  either  of  the  said  Seven  Bills."  2 

Following  the  passage  of  the  act  to  settle  the  quotas  no 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  291.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  309. 


153]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  ^3 

difficulty  was  experienced  with  the  support  bill.  Belcher 
enthusiastically  wrote  to  Bedford  that  the  new  assembly  was 
fine,  settled  two  points  contested  for  two  years,  and  he  be- 
lieved it  presaged  the  recovery  of  peace  and  order  in  the 
province.1 

Unfortunately  the  governor's  visions  of  peace  and  plenty 
did  not  materialize.  The  act  of  the  preceding  session  had 
enabled  the  legislature  to  settle  the  quotas  of  the  several 
counties,  in  order  that  taxes  might  be  levied,  but  the  first 
actual  levy  of  taxes  according  to  the  revised  schedule  of 
quotas  had  yet  to  be  made.  Attention  to  this  business  was 
recommended  to  the  assembly  by  the  governor  in  his  opening 
speech  at  the  session  in  September,  1751.2 

By  September  25th  the  lists  of  the  taxable  estates  of  the 
counties  had  been  received  by  the  assembly,  so  that  the  sup- 
port of  government  and  levying  the  proper  quotas  upon  the 
counties  could  be  taken  into  consideration.8  One  bill  for 
both  purposes  was  passed  by  the  lower  house  and  sent  to 
the  council.  The  act  was  amended  by  the  council,  chiefly 
because  that  house  believed  its  preamble  effectually  invali- 
dated the  declaratory  clause  added  to  the  quotas  bill  of  the 
last  session.4  The  assembly  refused  to  allow  the  council 
to  alter  the  bill  and  would  not  agree  to  a  conference.  The 
fact  that  the  bill  would  have  supported  the  government  for 
the  unusual  term  of  five  years  leads  one  to  believe  either 
that  the  assembly  had  slight  hope  of  its  enactment  into  law, 
or  were  willing  to  risk  its  passage  in  return  for  undoubted 
benefits  to  be  obtained. 

The  claim  was  now  set  up  by  the  lower  house  to  the  right 
to  deliver  all  support  bills  to  the  governor  in  person,  in- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  598.  2 Ibid.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  310. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  25,  1751. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  342. 


I54  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [I54 

stead  of  sending  them  to  the  council,  as  had  been  the  custom.1 
Certain  precedents  from  the  minutes  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  purporting  to  sub- 
stantiate this  claim  were  given.  The  advantage  of  this  plan 
was  to  give  the  governor  an  opportunity  to  peruse  the  sup- 
port bills,  in  cases  where  the  council  had  refused  to  pass 
them.  The  governor,  failing  to  be  convinced  of  the  value 
of  the  plan,  refused  to  become  a  partner  to  the  scheme. 

The  support  act  was  not  passed,  but  some  general  legis- 
lation for  the  welfare  of  the  colony  received  the  governor's 
assent.    The  assembly  was  prorogued  on  October  23,  1751. 

The  session  which  began  at  Perth  Amboy  on  January  25, 
1752,  allowed  the  legislature  another  opportunity  to  fill  the 
treasury.  Such  a  course  was  recommended  by  the  gov- 
ernor, who  hoped  that  the  council  and  assembly  would 
"  become  perfect  Strangers,  to  any  animosities,  or  Differ- 
ences ".2  Inasmuch  as  the  council  did  not  attempt  to  amend 
the  bill,  no  difficulty  arose.  The  question  of  the  propriety 
of  sending  the  support  act  directly  to  the  governor  was  re- 
vived at  this  sitting,  but  by  a  vote  of  13  to  5  it  was  resolved 
to  adhere  to  the  usual  practice  of  sending  it  to  the  council. 
This  was  evidently  a  setback  for  the  ardent  spirits  who  were 
too  prone  to  antagonize  the  council. 

At  this  session  Joseph  Bonney  petitioned  again  for  re- 
dress against  Sheriff  Riddle,  claiming  that  the  latter  held 
his  office  illegally,  in  consequence  of  which  his  acts  were 
void.3  In  response  to  a  similar  complaint  during  the  pre- 
vious session  Governor  Belcher  had  urged  that  a  joint  com- 
mittee of  the  two  houses  consider  this  case,  which  had  been 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  22,  1751. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  353. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  30,  1752. 


IS5]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  155 

pending  so  long.1  An  act  for  Bonney's  relief  had  at  that  time 
been  passed  by  the  lower  house,  but  failed  to  become  a  law, 
because  the  council  amendments  thereto  were  rejected.2 
The  governor's  attitude,  in  October,  1751,  was  favorable  to 
Bonney,  but  in  February,  1752,  he  refused  to  order  the 
prosecution  of  the  Somerset  County  officials,  said  to  have 
been  responsible  for  Bonney's  distress.3  The  unfortunate 
debtor  continued  to  petition  the  assembly  for  relief  as  late 
as  the  summer  of  1755,  but  his  efforts  seem  to  have  been 
unavailing. 

The  next  sitting  was  occasioned  by  an  additional  instruc- 
tion which  His  Majesty  had  sent  the  governor  requiring  a 
revised  edition  of  the  provincial  laws  to  be  sent  to  Eng- 
land.4 In  addition,  the  message  of  December  18,  1752, 
mentioned  that  the  support  had  expired  and  that  "  the  Ris- 
ing of  a  Seditious  Pack  of  Villains  ",  who  broke  open  the 
Perth  Amboy  jail  the  previous  April  pointed  clearly  to  the 
need  of  legislation  to  protect  the  jails.  Belcher,  upon  the 
advice  of  his  physician  as  well  as  that  of  the  council,  had 
called  this  session  to  meet  at  Elizabethtown.  However 
much  such  a  course  might  have  conformed  to  the  royal  in- 
structions, the  assembly  did  not  regard  it  as  necessary  at  this 
time  and  refused  to  proceed  to  business.6  The  governor 
was  told,  however,  that  as  the  laws  had  just  been  collected 
at  great  expense,6  a  circumstance  of  which  the  king  could 
not  have  been  aware  when  the  additional  instruction  was 
issued,  New  Jersey  should  not  be  under  the  necessity  of  re- 
vising her  laws.  The  house  members  were  horrified  at  the 
breaking  of  the  Amboy  jail,  but  as  the  rescued  prisoner, 

1  Assembly  Journal,  May  5,  1752.  *  Ibid.,  Oct.  4,  1752. 

•  Ibid.,  Feb.  7,  1752.       *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  391.        *Ibid.,  p.  394. 
•Nevill,  Acts  of  the   General  Assembly,  printed  in  1752,  were  re- 
ferred to. 


1 56  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [156 

Simon  Wickoff,  had  voluntarily  returned,  the  need  for  new 
laws  was  obviated !  The  wisdom  of  such  reasoning  is  open 
to  question. 

The  governor  prorogued  the  assembly  on  December  22d, 
when  he  replied  to  the  message  of  the  lower  house.1  The 
farcical  character  of  the  assembly  position  regarding  the 
Wickoff  rescue  and  the  need  for  safer  jails  did  not  pass  un- 
noticed. Belcher  professed  surprise  at  the  refusal  to  pro- 
ceed to  business  at  Elizabethtown,  and  submitted  the  royal 
instruction  upon  the  subject  to  the  assembly.  He  hoped  he 
could  meet  the  legislature  at  the  regular  meeting-place  in 
the  spring. 

The  fifth  sitting  of  the  eighteenth  assembly  began  at  Bur- 
lington on  May  16,  1753.  Owing  to  the  tardy  arrival  of  the 
councillors,  the  Opening  speech  to  the  legislature  was  not 
delivered  until  a  week  later.2  Except  to  advise  an  inquiry 
into  the  state  of  the  paper  money,  the  recommendations 
made  at  Elizabethtown  were  repeated.  The  opinion  of  the 
assembly  had  not  changed  regarding  the  revisal  of  the  laws, 
or  the  steps  necessary  to  lessen  the  violence  in  the  colony.8 
A  support  act  was  passed. 

The  inquiry  into  the  condition  of  the  paper  money  was 
the  most  important  question  considered  at  this  session. 
Responding  to  the  governor's  suggestion,  a  committee,  con- 
sisting of  Wood,  Learning,  and  Spicer,  prepared  an  elab- 
orate and  able  report  upon  the  bills  of  credit.  As  a  result 
of  this  report,  a  summary  of  which  is  given  in  a  later  chap- 
ter, it  was  resolved  to  petition  the  crown  for  permission  to 
emit  additional  paper  currency.  The  council  refused  to  join 
in  an  address  to  the  king  for  the  purpose,  but  this  did  not 
deter  the  other  house.4    It  was  necessary  to  postpone  further 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  396.  *  Assembly  Journal,  May  23,  1753. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  412.  4/6id.,  p.  407. 


I57]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  1 57 

action  upon  the  subject  of  paper  money  until  the  fate  of  the 
petition  should  be  known. 

Another  attempt  to  force  the  removal  of  a  sheriff  was 
made  by  the  assembly  at  this  time.  It  was  claimed  that 
Enoch  Anderson's  appointment  as  sheriff  of  Hunterdon 
County  was  a  grievance,  because  he  had  not  been  a  resident 
of  that  county  for  three  years.1  Declaring  that  to  ex- 
pound the  law  was  a  duty  of  the  judges,  and  not  of  a  single 
branch  of  the  government,  Belcher  refused  to  take  any 
action.  The  governor's  reply  was  pronounced  unsatis-- 
factory,  and  the  assembly  promised  to  answer  it  properly  at 
the  next  sitting.2  During  the  interval  Anderson  having 
been  removed,  the  assemblymen  soothed  their  ruffled  feel- 
ings by  the  mere  declaration  of  their  right  to  inquire  into 
and  complain  of  a  breach  of  the  law,  if  not  to  expound  the 
law.3 

There  were  eleven  bills  passed  at  this  session,  among 
them,  besides  the  support  act,  acts  to  regulate  the  militia, 
to  erect  Sussex  County,  to  redeem  the  outstanding  bills  of 
credit  made  current  for  the  Third  Intercolonial  War,  and 
to  continue  the  act  to  prevent  actions  under  £15  being 
brought  into  the  Supreme  Court.4  The  session  was  pro- 
rogued on  June  8th. 

The  encroachments  of  the  French  became  so  bold  in  1754 
that  the  colonies  most  concerned  sought  to  protect  them- 
selves and  called  upon  their  neighbors.  To  maintain  the 
fidelity  of  the  Six  Nations  was  of  great  importance  to  the 
English  interest.  The  famous  Albany  Conference  of  1754 
was  planned,  and  New  Jersey  with  the  other  colonies  was 
urged  to  send  delegates.  The  receipt  of  several  important 
messages  upon  this  head  convinced  Belcher  of  the  necessity 

1  Assembly  Journal,  June  6,  1753.  *  Ibid.,  June  8,  1753. 

s Ibid.,  June  12,  1753.  4Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  193. 


158  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [158 

of  calling  the  legislature.  His  ill  health  required  the  meet- 
ing to  be  held  at  Elizabethtown,  in  April,  1754.  The  coun- 
cil and  assembly  were  asked  to  assist  the  other  colonies  in 
the  important  crisis,  and  to  consider  whatever  else  the  public 
needs  demanded.1 

The  assembly  was  still  unwilling  to  transact  business 
away  from  the  accustomed  places,  and  sent  a  committee  of 
two  members  to  ask  the  governor  to  be  dismissed  to  Amboy, 
when  he  could  meet  the  legislature  there.  Such  messages 
were  usually  sent  through  the  council,  so  that  Belcher  cen- 
sured the  house  for  their  present  method  of  address,  de- 
claring it  unprecedented  and  disrespectful.2  He  intimated 
a  lack  of  tenderness  and  compassion  in  their  unwillingness 
to  continue  the  session  at  Elizabethtown.  Despite  his  ap- 
parent displeasure  the  assembly  was  prorogued  to  Perth 
Amboy,  where  it  met  on  June  3,  1754.  With  more  intem- 
perate language  than  had  ever  before  been  used  by  New 
Jersey  assemblies  to  Belcher,  the  lower  house  protested 
against  being  considered  guilty  of  disrespect  and  ingrati- 
tude.3 The  support  bill  was  passed,  but  no  provision  was 
made  for  sending  commissioners  to  Albany  or  aiding  the 
forces  in  Virginia.  As  a  result,  Belcher  regarded  it  as  nec- 
essary to  dissolve  the  eighteenth  assembly.4  The  dissolu- 
tion was  ordered  on  June  21,  1754. 

A  cheerful  activity  in  providing  men  and  money  against 
the  French  was  the  main  subject  recommended  to  the  legis- 
lature by  Belcher,  on  October  1,  1754.5  The  election  had 
resulted  in  the  return  of  less  than  half  of  the  old  members. 
Robert  Lawrence  was  chosen  speaker.  This  assembly  re- 
solved by  a  vote  of  20  to  2  to  grant  aid  to  the  king  against 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  455. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  April  29,  1754. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  462.  4  Ibid.,  p.  474.  6 Ibid.,  p.  487. 


159]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  159 

the  French.1  £10,000  of  a  £70,000  paper  money  emission, 
for  which  the  house  would  petition  was  to  to  be  set  aside  for 
th^s  purpose.2  The  governor  had  received  authority  to  as- 
sent to  a  bill  emitting  paper  money,  provided  a  suspending 
clause  was  added.  The  legislature  drafted  a  £70,000  act, 
ignoring  the  legal  tender  condition,  however,  and  petitioned 
the  king  for  the  royal  assent.  This  was  ineffectual  and  the 
bill  was  disallowed.8  Thus  the  king's  service  did  not  re- 
ceive the  benefit  of  the  seventh  part  of  the  expected  emission. 

The  business  of  the  second  session  of  the  nineteenth  as- 
sembly, which  continued  at  Elizabethtown  from  February 
24th  to  March  3d,  was  chiefly  regarding  military  affairs. 
Only  the  governor's  health  and  the  necessity  of  the  busi- 
ness justified  the  assembly  in  altering  the  custom  of  alter- 
nate sittings.4  Two  acts  were  passed  at  the  session,  to  pre- 
vent the  exportation  of  provisions  to  the  enemy,  and  to  pro- 
vide for  the  British  regulars  during  their  march  through 
the  colony.5  At  the  last  session  the  governor  had  strongly 
recommended  the  revision  of  the  militia  act,  especially  in 
respect  to  the  number  of  musters.  The  assembly  at  that 
time  regarded  it  as  sufficient,  but  Belcher  repeated  the 
recommendation  and  elaborated  his  views  at  this  session.8 
Consideration  was  again  given  to  the  militia  bill,  but  the 
assembly  contined  to  believe  that  its  provisions  answered 
the  design  intended  by  it.7 

The  vigor  with  which  the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War  now 
began  to  be  prosecuted  necessitated  frequent  meetings  of  the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  8,  1754.     The  negative  votes  were  cast  by 
Learning  and  Spicer. 
*Ibid.,  Oct.  11,  1754. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  101. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  24,  1755.  'Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  203. 

t N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  517.  T Ibid.,  p.  524. 


l6o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [160 

legislature.  From  this  time  until  Belcher's  death  all  the 
sessions  were  held  at  Dlizabethtown,  fifteen  consecutive  ses- 
sions being  held  at  that  place,  because  of  the  feeble  condi- 
tion of  the  governor's  health.  The  legislature  was  called 
together  in  April,  1755,  to  raise  men  and  money  for  the 
summer  campaign  of  that  year.1 

After  the  defeat  of  Braddock,  the  assembly  was  called, 
in  August,  1755,  to  increase  the  New  Jersey  quota  of  troops 
and  amend  the  militia  law.2  Both  of  the  recommendations 
were  rejected,  the  vote  on  the  latter  being  18  to  2.3  It  was 
the  rejection  of  their  petition  to  have  the  bills  of  credit  upon 
their  own  terms  that  was  guiding  the  attitude  of  the  lower 
house  in  the  war.4  The  original  quota  of  500  troops  was 
maintained,  but  beyond  this  the  assembly  refused  to  go. 
"  We  must  be  well  Assured,"  said  the  assembly  to  the  gov- 
ernor, on  November  14,  1755,  in  response  to  his  appeal 
for  the  defence  of  themselves  and  their  neighbors,  "  the 
Occasion  must  be  very  Extraordinary  to  induce  a  Province, 
already  loaded  as  this  is,  to  add  anything  further  ".5  And 
in  December,  1755,  the  assembly  made  provision  for  the 
defence  of  the  frontiers,  but  again  asked  to<  be  excused  from 
augmenting  the  New  Jersey  forces  outside  of  the  colony.6 
There  was  a  slight  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  assembly 
at  the  brief  session  in  March,  1756.  The  legislature  agreed 
to  act  in  conjunction  with  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
against  the  Indians,  pledging  to  support  one-fifth  of  the 
troops  raised  for  this  purpose.7 

The  houses  were  summoned  again  in  May  of  that  year, 

x  Assembly  Journal,  April,  1755. 

* N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  128. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  12,  1755. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  543.  ''Ibid.,  p.  562. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  23,  1755.  7 Ibid.,  Mar.  10,  1756. 


f6l]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  l6i 

and  convened  at  Elizabethtown  from  May  20th  to  June  2d. 
During  this  short  period  much  business  was  transacted. 
Emergency  legislation  in  connection  with  the  war  was  first 
passed,  after  which  a  vote  was  taken  as  to  the  propriety  of 
entering  upon  the  general  public  business  there,  or  ofl 
requesting  an  adjournment  to  Perth  Amboy.  By  a  margin 
of  one  vote,  it  was  decided  to  continue  the  sitting  at  Eliza- 
bethtown. The  government  was  supported  for  one  year,  and 
several  acts  of  the  colony  which  would  expire  by  their  own 
limitation  at  the  end  of  this  session  were  continued.1  The 
unanimity  and  dispatch  with  which  the  public  business  had 
been  transacted  resulted  in  an  eminently  profitable  session. 

A  five  day  session  was  held  in  July  and  a  three  day  session 
in  October,  1756,  at  neither  of  which  were  any  laws  passed. 
The  frequent  sittings  of  the  legislature  prompted  the  as- 
sembly to  ask  the  governor  to  put  them  under  the  necessity 
of  making  the  journey  to  Elizabethtown  as  infrequently 
as  possible.  The  insinuation  that  he  was  inconveniencing 
the  legislators  unnecessarily  brought  a  mild  rebuke  from 
Belcher.2  The  October  meeting  had  been  called  to  enable 
the  legislature  to  grant  Lord  Loudoun's  request  for  a  regi- 
ment from  New  Jersey.8  That  time  might  be  given  to  con- 
sider the  matter,  a  recess  was  allowed  until  December  23d. 
The  assembly  refused  to  raise  the  troops  until  Loudoun's  ex- 
act plan  was  prepared  and  made  known  to  the  legislature.* 

One  thousand  men  was  the  quota  which  Loudoun  wished 
from  New  Jersey.  Half  of  this  number  was  what  the  as- 
sembly resolved,  on  March  16,  1757,  to  raise,  and  despite 
the  entreaties  of  the  governor,  and  the  personal  appeal  of 
the  commander  himself,  it  remained  fixed  in  that  determina- 

-1  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  210.  *  Assembly  Journal,  July  24,  1756. 

*  N.  J.  A.%  vol.  xvii,  p.  62. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  23,  1756. 


162  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [^2 

tion.1  The  oposite  point  of  view  was  consistently  main- 
tained by  Belcher,  who  continually  criticized  the  assembly 
for  needlessly  limiting  their  endeavors.  His  opposition  was 
not  so  assertive  as  to  antagonze  the  legislature,  conduct 
which  was  in  accord  with  his  general  policy  in  New  Jersey. 
The  house  would  regularly  complain  at  being  the  recipients 
of  the  governor's  disapprobation  only,  and  then  proceed  to 
grant  the  usual  supply,  regardless  of  the  urgent  requests 
for  augmentation. 

Paper  money  was  still  the  obstacle.  Provision  for  the 
supply  of  the  troops  and  necessaries  was  made  by  the  emis- 
sion of  bills  of  credit  in  accordance  with  the  act  of  the  reign 
of  Anne.  The  governor  could  assent  to  no  emission  which 
was  not  to  be  redeemed  within  five  years  from  the  date 
within  which  the  bills  of  the  last  preceding  emission  were  re- 
deemable. When  compliance  had  not  been  fully  made  with 
the  quotas  demanded,  the  assembly  would  protest  that  more 
would  have  been  done,  had  the  time  for  the  redemption  of 
the  necessary  money  been  extended.2  That  strict  obedience 
to  the  royal  orders  forbade  the  extension  beyond  the  five- 
year  limit,  was  the  response  of  the  governor.  This  per- 
sistent disagreement,  because  of  the  desire  of  the  people  to 
push  the  reckoning  day  for  the  expenses  of  the  war  as  far 
from  themselves  as  possible,  caused  the  friction  in  the  gov- 
ernment. 

During  this  period  practically  no  general  legislation  Avas 
enacted,  except  the  support  act,  which  was  regularly  passed. 
The  war  so  completely  absorbed  the  attention  of  the  people 
that  other  matters  were  postponed.  Governor  Belcher  died 
on  August  31,  1757,  while  the  fifteenth  session  of  the  nine- 
teenth assembly  was  in  progress.    The  administration  there- 

1 Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  16,  30,  1757. 
■  Ibid.,  June  2,  1757. 


16$]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  163 

upon  devolved  upon  John  Reading.  During  the  last  few 
years  of  Belcher's  administration  the  sessions  had  been  so 
frequent  that  difficulty  was  often  experienced  in  obtaining 
a  quorum.  In  March,  1757,  upon  one  day,  Wetherill  and 
Holmes  were  expelled,  and  Paxson,  Clement  and  Hancock 
were  reprimanded  for  absenting  themselves  without  leave.1 
This  difficulty  was  doubtless  aggravated  because  of  the  ap- 
parent feeling  that  the  governor,  cognizant  of  the  deter- 
mined opinion  of  the  assembly,  nevertheless  repeatedly  sum- 
moned the  legislature  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  increasing 
the  forces. 

After  Belcher's  death  the  assembly,  upon  advice  of  the 
council,  adjourned  from  day  to  day  until  the  acting  gov- 
ernor was  sworn  into  office.  The  lower  house  grew  im- 
patient under  the  delay  occasioned  by  the  refusal  of  Reading 
to  accept  the  office.2  This  may  not  have  been  unwarranted, 
for  the  president  did  not  take  the  oaths  until  September 
13th,  following  which  the  legislature  was  adjourned. 

Two  sessions  were  held  during  Reading's  incumbency  in 
office.  Feeble  in  health,  the  president  was  inclined  to  ad- 
journ the  session  to  Trenton,  but  the  assembly  strenuously 
opposed  such  a  course,  determined  to  suspend  no  longer 
the  treasured  privilege  of  holding  alternate  sessions  at  the 
proper  places.8  With  few  exceptions  the  acts  passed  per- 
tained to  the  conduct  of  the  war.  A  more  energetic  and  com- 
prehensive prosecution  of  the  war  in  the  colonies  followed 
the  elder  Pitt's  accession  to  power  in  England  and  the  New 
Jersey  assembly  in  April,  1758,  doubled  the  usual  number 
of  volunteers,  augmenting  its  regiment  to  one  thousand  ef- 
fective men.*     This  incitement  to  duty  did  not  pass  un- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  31,  1757. 

*/6td.,  Sept.  7,  1757.  tIbid.i  Oct.  18,  1757. 

4Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 


T64  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [164 

noticed,  however,  in  their  message  to  the  executive  on  April 

17,  I758.1 

It  had  been  evident  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  Fourth 
Intercolonial  War  the  interests  and  activities  of  the  people 
of  New  Jersey,  as  with  the  other  colonies  also,  were  neces- 
sarily transferred  beyond  the  confines  of  the  province.  To 
engage  in  offensive  warfare  against  the  French  or  to  guard 
the  provincial  frontiers  from  the  depredations  of  the  In- 
dians required  the  sustained  effort  of  the  colony.  Except 
for  a  momentary  interval  after  the  close  of  the  French  war, 
conditions  continued  to  be  such  that  the  old  causes  of  strife 
between  governor  and  assembly,  or  council  and  assembly, 
disappeared.  Details  of  the  rapid  eddy  of  events  induced  by 
the  broadened  field  of  activity  and  interest  are  to  be  con- 
sidered in  subsequent  chapters.  The  domestic  concerns  of 
the  colony  caused  little  difficulty  in  legislation,  but  for  the 
sake  of  completeness,  a  survey  should  be  given. 

Francis  Bernard,  the  new  royal  governor,  met  the  legis- 
lature for  the  first  time  at  Burlington,  on  July  25,  1758. 
The  usual  congratulatory  addresses  were  exchanged,  and 
as  the  assembly  had  already  found  "  Opportunity  to  form 
Rational  Prepossessions  "  in  his  favor,  the  governor  was 
voted  £500  to  defray  his  expenses  in  coming  to  this  grateful 
people.2  The  new  governor  appeared  to  be  especially  in- 
terested in  frontier  and  Indian  affairs.  {lis  services  at  the 
Easton  Conference  in  October,  1758,  were  of  value  to  the 
colony.  During  the  first  session  of  the  legislature  in  his  ad- 
ministration the  act  empowering  the  purchase  of  the  Indian 
claims  to  land  was  passed.8 

Only  two  other  sessions  of  the  legislature  were  held  dur- 
ing his  administration.     The  general  public  business  was 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  175.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  181. 

'  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  221. 


^5]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  165 

transacted  with  unusual  rapidity  at  the  sitting  from  the 
eighth  to  the  seventeenth  of  March,  1759.  There  was  a 
slight  disagreement,  however,  regarding  the  selection  of  a 
speaker.1  As  Lawrence  was  indisposed,  the  governor 
recommended  the  election  of  a  temporary  speaker  to  act 
until  Lawrence  returned.  The  house  disagreed  and  elected 
Samuel  Nevill,  as  the  regular  speaker.  In  finally  consenting 
to  this  choice,  Bernard  declared  that  it  should  not  be  made 
a  precedent.  At  the  sitting  in  1759,  and  also  in  March, 
1760,  one  thousand  volunteers  for  the  war  were  raised. 

Bernard,  transferred  to  the  Massachusetts  government,  was 
succeeded  in  New  Jersey  by  Thomas  Boone.  The  new  gov- 
ernor promised  to  guard  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
legislature  from  violation  or  infringement.2  Even  had  he 
not  been  so  disposed,  it  is  doubtful  if  he  could  have  made 
headway  by  acting  otherwise.  When  he  told  the  assembly 
that  their  methods  of  raising  money  deviated  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  constitution,  which  he  urged  the  represen- 
tatives to  consult  and  "  yield  to  the  Emotions  of  Gratitude/' 
the  retort  was  returned  that  those  methods  were  doubtless 
capable  of  a  better  construction  than  first  occurred  to  His 
Excellency.3  Nevertheless  Boone  succeeded  in  obtaining 
the  first  two-year  support  act  passed  since  1749,  which  fact 
he  proudly  related  to  the  lords  of  trade.4 

It  was  the  twenty-first  session  of  the  nineteenth  assembly 
that  began  on  October  29,  1760,  and  continued  until  Decem- 
ber 5th,  being  the  longest  held  since  September,  1751. 
Twenty-two  acts  were  passed,  including  measures  to  pro- 
vide for  the  maintenance  or  construction  of  roads  and  public 
buildings,  the  continuance  of  acts  about  to  expire,  and  sev- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  8,  1759-  *Ibid.,  Oct.  30,  1760. 

8 Ibid.,  Nov.  2i,  1760. 
lN.  /.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  248. 


166  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [166 

eral  private  acts.1  One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  meas- 
ures was  for  the  preservation  of  the  public  records  of  the 
colony,  an  act  which  Governor  Morris  had  urged  years 
before. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  session,  the  assembly  asked  for  a 
dissolution  to  enable  their  constituents  to  declare  their  choice 
at  the  polls.  A  similar  request  had  been  submitted  to  Bel- 
cher in  March,  1757,  but  had  been  ignored.2  Boone  at  this 
time  promised  to  exercise  his  authority  in  regard  to  a  disso- 
lution whenever  the  king's  service  demanded.3  Although 
his  reply  offered  no  direct  encouragement,  an  election  was 
held,  and  the  twentieth  assembly  met  for  the  first  time  on 
March  27,  1761.  Ten  new  members  were  returned  to  this 
house. 

The  chief  business  at  the  sessions  in  March  and  July, 
1 761,  was  to  provide  for  raising  troops.  Meanwhile  Boone 
had  received  an  appointment  as  governor  of  South  Carolina, 
and  Josiah  Hardy  superseded  him  in  New  Jersey  in  October, 
1761. 

The  new  governor  of  course  came  resolved  to  make  the 
people  of  the  province  the  objects  of  his  care,  and  to  pro- 
tect their  sacred  and  inviolable  privileges.4  In  an  address 
the  assemblymen  naturally  returned  thanks  for  such  favor- 
able sentiments,  hoping  likewise  that  Hardy's  administration 
by  its  length  would  end  the  rotation  of  governors  sent  in 
recent  years  to  New  Jersey.5  The  hope  was  expressed  in 
vain,  however,  because  his  successor  as  governor  was  com- 
missioned within  a  year  from  the  date  of  its  expression. 
Only  four  brief  sittings  of  the  legislature  were  held  during 
Hardy's  regime,  the  chief  business  of  which  was  to  raise 

^llinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  226. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  31, 1757.  *  Ibid.,  Dec.  5,  1760. 

%N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  244.  5 Ibid.,  p.  252. 


iSy]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  167 

provincial  troops,  and  to  provide  garrisons  for  the  British 
regulars.  Hardy's  administration  was  characterized  by  the 
assembly  as  "  disinterested,  Candid  and  benevolent."  It  will 
be  remembered  that  he  was  removed  by  the  royal  authorities 
owing  to  a  disagreement  relative  to  the  tenure  of  judges.1 

It  was  almost  three  months  to  a  day  after  his  arrival  in 
the  colony  when  the  newly-appointed  royal  governor,  Will- 
iam Franklin,  met  the  legislature.  The  happy  and  glorious 
end  of  the  long  war  against  the  French  afforded  a  splendid 
opportunity,  he  told  them,  for  giving  "  earnest  attention  to 
the  Arts  of  Peace."  2  The  necessary  general  legislation  was 
recommended  to  the  attention  of  the  council  and  assembly, 
as  was  also  the  conspicuous  unanimity  which  had  charac- 
terized the  legislative  sessions  of  the  recent  past.  The 
reply  of  the  houses  was  marked  by  the  usual  flattering  plati- 
tudes. 

There  were  in  general  two  chief  reasons  for  the  unanimity 
that  had  existed  between  the  branches  of  the  legislature  in 
New  Jersey  during  the  five  or  six  years  preceding  Franklin's 
accession.  They  were  the  united  purpose  in  the  war  against 
the  French,  and  the  brief  administrations  of  the  governors 
during  that  period.  In  Franklin's  administration  the  gap 
between  himself  and  the  people  widened,  just  in  propor- 
tion as  did  that  between  the  mother  country  and  the  colo- 
nies. Inasmuch  as  the  details  of  this  administration  are 
more  properly  considered  in  later  chapters,  only  the  general 
character  of  the  legislative  sessions  need  be  here  mentioned. 

The  twentieth  assembly  was  not  dissolved  at  Franklin's 
accession,  no  new  election  being  held  until  1769.  This  was 
consequently  the  longest  assembly  of  the  royal  period  in 
New  Jersey,  continuing  from  March,  1761,  until  May,  1768. 
Robert  Ogden  was  elected  speaker  at  the  first  sitting  of  the 

1  AT.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  352.  *Ibid.y  vol.  xvii,  p.  344. 


l68  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [168 

assembly  under  Franklin,  and  continued  in  that  position 
until  his  resignation  in  1765,  as  a  result  of  the  opposition 
in  Essex  County  because  of  his  refusal  to  subscribe  to  the 
resolutions  of  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  in  New  York. 

The  first  serious  difficulty  between  the  governor  and  as- 
sembly resulted  during  the  Stamp  Act  controversy,  when 
the  assembly  in  an  extra-legal  session  held  at  Perth  Amboy 
elected  delegates  to  the  general  Stamp  Act  Congress  above 
mentioned.  The  Stamp  Act  resolves  passed  in  November, 
1765,  by  the  New  Jersey  assembly  widened  this  breach,  and 
brought  upon  the  assembly  a  learned  tirade  from  their  gov- 
ernor. The  subsequent  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  act  brought 
a  return  of  apparent  harmony  to  the  government. 

After  Ogden's  resignation,  Cortlandt  Skinner,  of  Perth 
Amboy,  was  elected  speaker.  The  three  sessions  in  1766, 
1767  and  1768  were  of  signal  success.  Much  general  legis- 
lation was  passed  for  the  welfare  of  the  province,  and  also 
special  legislation  for  the  supply  of  the  royal  troops.  In 
the  session  of  1766  public  improvements,  such  as  the  repair 
of  roads  and  bridges,  received  special  attention  as  a  result 
of  numerous  petitions  presented  to  the  house  upon  such 
subjects.1  At  this  session  twenty-two  acts  were  passed. 
But  this  number  was  exceeded  by  one,  in  the  session  of 
1768,  when,  among  others,  bills  for  the  septennial  election 
of  representatives,  and  for  choosing  representatives  in 
Morris,  Cumberland  and  Sussex  Counties  were  enacted. 

The  twenty-first  assembly  met  on  October  10,  1768. 
There  were  thirteen  new  members.  No  less  than  nine  mem- 
bers of  the  former  assembly  had  died,  making  necessary 
special  elections  from  time  to  time  for  members  to  serve 
during  the  unexpired  terms.  In  only  two  cases,  however, 
were  such  members  re-elected  to  the  new  assembly.     Old 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p,  453,  note. 


169]  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  169 

age  rather  than  dissatisfaction  with  their  representatives 
doubtless  accounts  for  the  large  number  of  new  members 
returned  by  the  people.1  This  assembly  continued  until  De- 
cember, 1  j j  1.  Skinner  was  speaker  until  his  indisposition 
in  October,  1770,  when  Stephen  Crane  was  elected,  con- 
tinuing as  speaker  until  the  election  of  the  next  and  last  as- 
sembly of  the  royal  period. 

The  business  of  the  legislature  was  largely  occupied  dur- 
ing 1769  and  1770  with  the  investigation  and  legislation 
occasioned  by  the  demonstrations  against  the  lawyers  in 
Essex  and  Monmouth  Counties.  The  disallowance  of  the 
bill  that  had  been  passed  for  the  emission  of  £100,000  in 
bills  of  credit  marked  the  beginning  of  a  protracted  struggle 
on  the  part  of  the  assembly  to  force  the  royal  assent  to  such 
an  emission  by  refusing  to  grant  funds,  wherewith  the  bar- 
racks for  the  royal  troops  might  be  supplied.  This  contest 
seriously  embarrassed  legislation,  and  led  to  the  dissolution 
of  the  assembly  on  December  21,  1771.  The  long  contro- 
versy of  this  year  elicited  several  long  messages  from  the 
governor,  and  replies  by  the  assembly,  upon  the  financial 
circumstances  of  the  colony. 

The  membership  of  the  twenty-second  assembly  was  en- 
larged to  30  members  by  the  new  delegations  from  Morris, 
Cumberland  and  Sussex  Counties.  The  attitude  of  the  new 
assembly  was  no  more  favorable  to  the  governor  upon  the 
questions  that  provoked  a  division  than  that  of  the  preced- 
ing house  had  been.  At  the  opening  of  the  first  sitting  in 
August,  1772,  Stephen  Crane  was  again  elected  speaker, 
but  Cortlandt  Skinner  succeeded  him  at  the  next  session, 
which  met  on  November  10,  1773. 

Legislation  was  interrupted  from  August,  1772,  until 
early  in  1774,  because  of  the  fruitless  controversy  regard- 

1  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  series  i,  vol.  v,  p.  32. 


I7o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [170 

ing  the  responsibility  of  the  East  Jersey  treasurer  in  con- 
nection with  the  robbery  of  his  office.  Messages,  pages  in 
length,  passed  between  the  governor  and  the  assembly,  until 
Treasurer  Skinner's  resignation  brought  about  an  accom- 
modation in  the  matter,  which  relieved  the  deadlock  but 
did  not  settle  the  dispute. 

Governor  Franklin's  fidelity  to  his  British  superiors  was 
not  consonant  with  the  growing  estrangement  between  the 
colonists  and  the  mother  country.  As  late  as  November, 
1775,  the  assembly  protested  against  independence,  and 
there  was  an  appearance  of  cordiality  or  courtesy  between 
the  governor  and  the  house.  On  November  15,  1775,  the 
fifth  sitting  of  the  twenty-second  assembly  began  at  Bur- 
lington. The  act  for  the  support  of  government,  with  seven 
other  measures,  was  passed.  After  the  public  business  had 
been  transacted,  on  December  6th,  "  His  Excellency  was 
pleased  to  prorogue  the  General  Assembly  till  Wednesday, 
the  third  day  of  January  next,  then  to  meet  at  Perth  Am- 
boy."  x  But  the  royal  provincial  legislature  never  reas- 
sembled. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  6,  1775. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The  Proprietary  System  and  the  Land  Troubles 

Adjustment  of  conflicting  land  claims  was  the  most 
annoying  and  distracting  feature  of  New  Jersey  history 
during  the  colonial  period.  In  large  part,  that  issue  pre- 
cipitated the  contests  between  the  branches  of  government 
until  the  close  of  Governor  Belcher's  administration.  The 
line  of  cleavage  between  the  two  rival  factions,  proprietary 
and  anti-proprietary,  was  naturally  aggravated,  because 
frequently  a  majority  of  the  council  held  large  proprietary 
estates,  while  in  the  assembly  opinion  favored  the  people 
who  claimed  lands  under  counter-proprietary  titles.  Better 
to  understand  the  land  troubles  during  this  period,  it  will 
be  necessary  briefly  to  consider  the  character  of  the  pro- 
prietorship and  review  the  early  contests.  The  later  dis- 
sensions grew  out  of,  and  had  their  inception  in,  the  same 
general  misunderstandings  that  characterized  the  early 
struggles. 

In  the  opening  chapter,  mention  was  made  of  the  trans- 
fers by  means  of  which  title  to  the  soil  of  East  Jersey  be- 
came vested  in  a  board  of  twenty-four  proprietors,  and  that 
of  West  Jersey  came  into  possession  of  a  much  larger  num- 
ber of  owners.  -Ihe^facl  that  the  governing  power  of  the_ 
province  after  1702  had  no  right  or  title  to  the  soil,  is  the 
jajkat_and  distinctive  feature  ot  Mew  jersey,  as  casting 
gujshed  from  other  cojojrnes^  Governmental  power  was 
held  by  the  king,  and  actively  administered  by  the  gover- 
i7iT"  171 


lj2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [iy2 

>_norlwj^a»cil  and  assembly;  the  title  to  land  was  held  by 
the  proprietors  of  East  and  West  Jersey,  whose  affairs 
^wej£_acjtrvejy:_ajdrninistered  by  two  councils ^or_boards,  one 
for  each  division.  Members  "of  the  proprietary  boards 
were,  as  has  been  shown,  frequently  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment or  members  of  the  legislature.  That  the  personnel 
of  the  provincial  council  might  in  large  part  be  made  up 
of  members  of  one  or  the  other  council  of  proprietors  is 
apparent.  It  was  this  interaction  of  proprietary  influence 
in  the  government  of  the  colony  that  encouraged  popular 
distrust. 

Proprietary  ownership  in  East  Jersey  was  much  less 
democratic  than  in  the  sister  division.1  The  council  was 
an  aristocratic  organization  of  wealthy  landowners.  Any 
of  the  twenty-four  proprietors,  or  their  proxies,  who  had 
retained  one-quarter  of  his  propriety  was  admitted  to  a 
seat  in  the  council.  Where  the  process  of  sub-division  had 
left  no  one  person  with  a  fourth  part,  the  holders  of  the 
lesser  interests  chose  one  person  as  their  representative. 
The  council  examined  the  right  to  land  titles,  purchased 
land  from  the  Indians,  rented  land  to  the  colonists,  and 
transacted  such  other  business  as  properly  came  to  their 
attention. 

The  frequency  of  council  meetings  naturally  depended 
upon  the  condition  of  proprietary  affairs,  although  there 
were  regularly  two  meetings  yearly.  Seven  members  con- 
stituted a  quorum.  A  president  was  annually  elected,  usu- 
ally at  a  meeting  held  in  March  or  April.  In  1730  John 
Hamilton  succeeded  Lewis  Morris  as  president,  and  was 
annually  re-elected  until  his  death.  In  1748  Andrew  John- 
ston was  elected  president,  acting  in  that  capacity  until  his 

•Tanner,  op.  tit.,  chs.  i,  iii,  and  xxvii. 


173]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  ^3 

death  in  1762,  after  which  James  Parker  was  chosen.  He 
was  the  last  president  during  the  colonial  era.  The  import- 
ant office  of  surveyor  general  was  held  from  1716  to  1756 
by  James  Alexander.  For  forty  years  the  resourceful  abil- 
ity of  this  learned  Scotchman  was  devoted  with  energy  and 
zeal  to  further  the  interests  of  the  proprietors.1  His  pres- 
ence at  council  meetings  appears  to  have  been  indispensable. 
On  March  22,  1742,  "  Mr.  Alexander  being  called  away 
on  extraordinary  occasions,  the  council  did  not  proceed 
on  business."  2  William  Alexander,  Lord  Stirling,  became 
surveyor  general  after  his  father's  death  in  1756.3  His 
successor  was  John  Rutherford,  chosen  in  177 1.  In  1738 
Lawrence  Smyth  was  acting  as  register  or  secretary  of  the 
board  of  East  Jersey  proprietors.  Ten  years  later  he  was 
succeeded  in  that  office  by  John  Smyth,  who  held  the  office 
until  the  Revolution,  and  carried  the  records  to  New  York 
with  him,  upon  his  removal  there.4  In  passing,  it  may  be 
mentioned  that  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  maintained  an 
agent  at  London  to  protect  their  interests  at  court.  Fer- 
dinand John  Paris,  an  able  and  influential  London  lawyer, 
was  a  staunch  and  constant  defender  of  proprietary  rights, 
when  acting  as  agent  for  more  than  thirty  years  prior  to 

I7595 

Although  the  surrender  of  the  right  of  government  to 

the  crown  greatly  decreased  the  influence  of  the  board,  its 
personnel  continued  to  consist  of  men  of  rank  in  the  prov  • 

1  See  American  Historical  Magazine,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  II. 

1  Min.  of  Council  of  Prop.  ofE.  J. ,  Mar.  22,  1742.  Upon  Alexander's 
death,  a  eulogistic  letter  of  condolence  was  sent  to  his  widow,  and 
spread  upon  the  minutes  of  the  board,  June  17,  1756. 

lMin.  of Coun.  of  Prop,  of  E.  J.,  June  17,  1756. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  420. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  44s;  vol.  vi,  p.  424. 


174  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [174 

ince.  Prominent  among  its  members  in  1738  were  John 
Hamilton,  James  Alexander,  Richard  Ashfield,  Andrew 
Johnston,  Samuel  Leonard,  Lawrence  Smyth,  Fenwick 
Lyell,  Joseph  Murray,  John  Burnet  and  Michael  Kearney, 
all  of  whom  were  active  in  the  public  life  of  the  colony. 
The  following  year  Samuel  Nevill  began  his  association 
with  the  proprietors  in  America,  and  in  August,  1742,  Rob- 
ert Hunter  Morris  took  his  seat  in  the  council,  having  suc- 
ceeded to  the  estate  of  Richard  Ashfield.1  Elisha  Parker 
appeared  at  the  March  meeting  of  1745,  and  in  later  years 
James,  his  son,  was  closely  identified  with  proprietary 
affairs.  Between  1750  and  1760  Cortlandt' Skinner,  John 
Stevens,  Dr.  John  Johnston,  the  Earl  of  Stirling  and  David 
Ogden,  acting  for  the  Penns,  succeeded  to  membership. 
Before  the  Revolution  came  to  interrupt  the  regular  meet- 
ings of  the  board,  Walter  Rutherford,  Oliver  DeLancy 
and  Henry  Cuyler  were  counted  as  members.  This  mere 
catalogue  of  names  prominent  in  New  Jersey  history  is 
indicative  of  the  degree  of  influence  wielded  by  the  pro- 
prietary interests. 

n  West  Jersey  the  land  was  owned  by  a  large  number 
,ffoi  persons.2  There  were  one  hundred  proprieties,  and  the 
holding  of  only  a  thirty-second  part  of  a  propriety  was 
I-  requisite  for  a  voice  in  proprietary  affairs.  The  council 
was  a  representative  body,  five  members  being  annually 
chosen  at  Burlington  and  four  at  Gloucester.  There  was 
little  or  no  complaint  by  the  people  against  the  landholders, 
for  they  were  in  large  part  the  people,  and  had  an  effective 
voice  in  the  conduct  of  affairs.  Hence,  whatever  contests 
there  were,  were  chiefly  due  to  the  conflicting  interests  of 

1  Min.  of  Coun.  of  Prop,  of  E.  J.,  Aug.  16,  1742. 
"Tanner,  op.  cit.t  chs.  i,  vi,  and  xxviii. 


175]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  175 

the  proprietors  themselves,  and  were  within  the  proprie- 
tary body. 

Annually  in  May  the  council  elected  its  own  officers,  a 
president,  vice-president,  and  register.  Except  in  the  case  of 
the  surveyor  general,  who  was  usually  chosen  for  successive 
terms  of  three  years  each,  the  offices  changed  hands  fre- 
quently. No  less  than  ten  different  men  acted  as  president, 
eleven  as  vice-president,  and  seven  as  register  between  1738 
and  1776.  Some  of  the  most  active  proprietors  served 
terms  in  each  office.  James  Alexander  was  surveyor  gen- 
eral of  both  East  and  West  Jersey  until  his  death,  but  he  did 
not  take  the  same  keen  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  latter  di- 
vision which  he  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  former.  In 
1743  complaint  was  made  against  his  residing  out  of  the 
province,  and  a  similar  complaint  in  1752  charged  that  his 
deputies  were  not  under  his  control.1  Consequently  William 
Alexander  did  not  succeed  his  father  as  surveyor  general  in 
West  Jersey,  but  Daniel  Smith,  of  Burlington,  was  appointed 
to  executive  office.  His  conduct  of  the  office  gave  general 
satisfaction,  and  resulted  in  his  appointment  for  six  succes- 
sive terms  of  three  years  each.  In  May,  1744,  he  asked 
relief  from  the  cares  of  the  surveyor  generalship,  and  Rob- 
ert Smith,  Jr.,  was  elected.2  He  was  recommissioned  in 
1777  for  a  second  term  of  three  years. 

It  was  the  frequent  complaint  of  the  governors  that 
West  Jersey  did  not  contain  sufficient  men  with  proper 
qualifications  for  their  recommendation  to  the  provincial 
council.  Comparing  the  public  services  and  activities  of  the 
East  Jersey  proprietors  with  the  proprietary  representatives 
in  West  Jersey,  the  balance  is  largely  in  favor  of  the  for- 

xMin.  of  Chun,  of  Prop,  of  E.  J.,  Sept.  16,  1743;  Feb.  18,  1752. 
* Min.  of  Coun.  of  Prop,  of  W.  J.,  May  3,  1774. 


Ij6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [176 

mer.  The  great  number  of  Quakers  in  the  western  division 
accounts  in  part  for  this  discrepancy.  It  is  true  also  that 
some  of  the  most  eminent  West  Jersey  proprietors  were 
never  elected  to  the  proprietary  council.  Included  among 
the  prominent  members  of  the  board  during  this  time  were 
Daniel  Coxe,  John  Reading,  Thomas  Wetherill,  Revell 
Elton,  John  Mickle,  John  Ladd,  Mahlon  Stacy,  Jacob  Hew- 
lings,  Peter  Baynton,  Robert  Hartshorne,  Ebenezer  Miller, 
Thomas  Rodman,  John  Hinchman,  William  and  Abraham 
Hewlings,  Samuel  Clements  and  Daniel  Ellis.  A  consid- 
erable number  of  these  gentlemen  served  in  the  colonial 
assembly,  and  two  or  three  were  honored  by  appointments 
to  the  council  of  New  Jersey.  Of  course,  there  were  other 
West  Jersey  landowners,  never  elected  to  the  proprietary 
council,  who  held  positions  of  public  trust. 

The  question  of  ownership  of  two  extensive  tracts  of  land, 
designated  as  the  Elizabethtown  Purchase  and  the  Mon- 
mouth Purchase,  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  land  troubles. 
These  tracts  comprised  practically  five  counties  of  the  pres- 
ent state,  the  Monmouth  Purchase  including  the  settle- 
ments of  Middletown  and  Shrewsbury,  and  the  Elizabeth- 
town  Purchase  the  towns  of  Elizabethtown,  Newark,  Ber- 
gen, Woodbridge  and  Piscataway.  At  irregular  intervals 
during  the  colonial  life  of  New  Jersey,  after  an  apparent 
adjustment  of  claims,  the  vexatious  disputes  would  again 
arise  to  plague  the  proprietors.  From  1702  until  1738 
there  was  a  period  of  comparative  quiet,  as  regards  the 
land  disputes.  But  during  the  administration  of  Governor 
Morris  unrest  again  became  evident,  and  continued  through- 
out almost  the  whole  of  Governor  Belcher's  long  adminis- 
tration, assuming  at  times  a  very  serious  aspect. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1664  King  Charles  II  had 
granted  to  his  brother  James,  the  Duke  of  York,  the  lands 


177]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  177 

lying  between  the  Connecticut  River  and  Delaware  Bay. 
Under  the  command  of  Colonel  Richard  Nicolls,  a  fleet 
was  despatched  by  the  Duke  to  take  possession  of  the  terri- 
tory and  oust  the  Dutch.  The  expedition  proved  success- 
ful and  Nicolls  was  the  governor  of  this  territory,  which 
thus  included  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  In  September 
of  that  year  some  settlers  from  Jamaica,  Long  Island,  ap- 
plied for  permission  to  purchase  land,  which  permission 
being  granted  by  Nicolls,  these  settlers — "  Bailey,  Denton 
and  Watson,  their  Associates,  their  Heirs  and  Executors  " 
— by  purchase  obtained  a  deed  to  a  tract  of  land  from  three 
Indian  Sagamores.  In  the  words  of  the  indenture,  the 
tract  was  bounded  "  on  the  south  by  a  river  commonly 
called  the  Raritan  River,  and  on  the  east  by  the  river  which 
parts  Staten  Island  and  the  Main,  and  to  run  northward 
up  after  Cull  Bay  till  we  come  at  the  first  river  which  sets 
westward  out  of  the  said  Bay  aforesaid,  and  to  run  west 
into  the  country  twice  the  length  as  it  is  broad  from  the 
north  to  the  south  of  the  aforementioned  bounds."  l  Bai- 
ley, Watson  and  their  associates  had  this  purchase  confirmed 
by  a  patent  from  Nicolls,  with  the  proviso  that  they  should 
render  a  certain  yearly  rent  to  the  Duke  of  York  or  his 
assigns,  according  to  the  customary  rate  of  the  country  for 
new  plantations.  This  grant,  the  so-called  Elizabethtown 
Purchase,  contained  a  tract  of  great  extent,  probably  be- 
tween 400,000  and  500,000  acres.2 

In  June,  1664,  while  the  Nicolls  fleet  was  still  at  sea,  the 
Duke  of  York,  evidently  anticipating  the  successful  outcome 
of  the  expedition,  granted  by  deeds  of  lease  and  release  to 
Berkeley  and  Carteret  that  part  of  his  newly  acquired  terri- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  i,  p.  15. 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  36. 


178  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [178 

tory  which  we  know  as  New  Jersey.  Of  this  grant,  Nicolls 
was,  of  course,  unaware  when  he  confirmed  the  purchase 
of  Bailey,  Watson  and  associates,  and  indeed  he  probably 
was  not  informed  of  the  transfer  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret 
until  December  of  that  year.1 

Thus  in  these  two  grants,  the  one  of  Nicolls  to  Bailey 
and  associates,  and  the  other  from  the  Duke  of  York  to 
Berkeley  and  Carteret,  there  are  two  conflicting  claims  to 
the  same  tract  of  land.  In  this  conflict  of  grants  is  found 
the  source  of  those  disturbances  that  for  decades  disturbed 
what  might  well  otherwise  have  been  a  period  of  peace  and 
quiet  in  New  Jersey  history. 

After  New  Jersey  was  deeded  over  to  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret, the  lords  proprietors  commissioned  Philip  Carteret,  a 
cousin  of  the  proprietor,  as  their  governor.  According  to 
the  "  Concessions  and  Agreements  "  issued  by  the  propri- 
etors, lands  were  to  be  taken  up  only  by  warrant  from  the 
governor,  and  were  to  be  patented  by  him.  Quit  rents 
were  not  required  until  March  25,  1670,  after  which 
they  were  to  be  paid  annually,  "  a  halfpenny  of  lawful 
money  of  England  for  everyone  of  the  said  acres."  The 
arrival  of  Governor  Carteret  in  America  was  not  marked 
by  any  disquieting  omens,  premonitions  that  might  possibly 
have  been  expected  of  the  two  conflicting  interests  which 
later  would  assert  themselves  so  positively,  and  indeed  in- 
dications point  to  the  fact  that  the  settlement  was  quietly 
made  under  the  Concessions  instead  of  under  the  Nicolls 
grants,2  for  the  fact  is  that  a  large  majority  of  the  people, 
sixty-five  male  inhabitants,  swore  fidelity  to  the  lords  pro- 
prietors'  claims.3     Newark,   Piscataway  and   Woodbridge 

1 N.  Y.  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  105. 
'Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  68. 
%N.  J.  A.,  i,  p.  49. 


179]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  179 

were  settled  deliberately  under  the  Concessions,  and  oppo- 
sition to  the  proprietors  came  as  an  after  thought.1 

In  point  of  law,  as  to  the  legal  ownership  of  the  lands  in 
question,  the  case  rests  clearly  in  favor  of  the  proprietors. 
The  emptiness  of  a  claim  based  merely  on  Indian  purchase 
was  apparent  even  to  the  anti-proprietary  settlers  them- 
selves.2 But  their  position  also  regarding  the  Nicolls  grants 
cannot  be  sustained.  Those  transfers  of  lands  took  place 
after  the  tracts  had  passed  from  James'  ownership.  By 
eminent  lawyers  the  opinion  was  given  that  "  The  Dele- 
gated Power  which  Colonel  Nicolls  had,  of  making  grants 
of  the  lands,  could  last  no  longer  than  his  Master's  interest, 
who  gave  him  that  power;  and  the  having  or  not  having 
notice  of  the  Duke's  grant  to  the  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir 
George  Carteret  makes  no  difference  in  the  law,  but  the 
want  of  notice  makes  it  great  equity,  that  the  present  pro- 
prietors should  confirm  such  grants  to  the  people  who  will 
submit  to  the  concessions  and  payment  of  the  present  pro- 
prietors common  quit  rents."  8  This  right  in  equity  the 
proprietors  always  respected,  offering  to  confirm  the  grants 
made  under  the  Indian  purchase  and  the  Nicolls  patent,  but 
at  the  same  time  justly  claiming  their  right  to  the  yearly 
rent,  as  prescribed  by  the  concessions. 

The  pinch  first  came  with  the  advent  of  1670  and  the  first 
demand  for  quit-rent,  as  authorized  by  the  concessions  and 
agreements.  There  was  a  general  refusal  on  the  part  of 
the  inhabitants  to  pay  the  rent,  and  Governor  Carteret, 
helpless  before  determined  opposition,  leaving  Captain  Berry 
as  his  deputy,  went  to  England  to  impress  upon  the  author- 
ities the  sad  state  of  affairs  which  existed  in  New  Jersey. 

1 N.  J.  Historical  Society  Proc,  series  ii,  vol.  i,  pp.  161  et  seq. 

'Tanner,  op,  cit.,  p.  60. 

'  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  41. 


r8o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [180 

The  result  was  decisive,  and  opposition  melted  before  proc- 
lamations oft  the  proprietors  commanding  obedience  to 
Berry,  and  asserting  the  invalidity  of  claims  held  under  the 
Nicolls  patent. 

ly  after  came  the  Dutch  re-occupation  of  New  York, 

be  followed  closely  by  the  English  reconquest.  Subse- 
quent to  this  double  change  of  ownership,  which  New  York 
experienced  between  1673  and  1674,  the  Duke  of  York  re- 
conveyed  East  Jersey  to  Carteret.  The  patent  which  James 
obtained  from  the  king  after  the  resurrender  of  New  York 
to  the  English  was  an  absolutely  new  one,  which  according 
to  English  law  annulled  previous  grants.  Hence,  in  the 
same  way  the  Duke's  reconveyance  to  Carteret  gave  the  latter 
a  new  and  unquestioned  title  to  his  part  of  New  Jersey, 
and  would  in  point  of  law  necessarily  rob  the  Nicolls  patent 
of  any  possible  validity  which  might  previously  have  been 
claimed  for  it.  And  such  was  indeed  the  case,  for,  with  a 
single  exception,  all  of  the  original  Elizabethtown  associates 
obtained  warrants  for  surveys  under  the  proprietors,  as 
was  also  quite  generally  the  case  in  Newark  and  Piscataway. 

For  a  considerable  period  occasional  mutterings  of  dis- 
content were  heard,  but  the  twenty-four  proprietors,  into 
whose  hands  East  Jersey  had  now  come,  never  relaxed  in 
their  opposition  to  any  recognition  of  the  Nicolls  grants, 
and  comparative  quiet  was  maintained.  This,  however,  was 
the  lull  before  a  formidable  storm  which,  when  its  power 
was  spent,  was  a  chief  cause  of  the  surrender  of  the  pro- 
prietary government  to  the  crown.  In  1693,  when  Jones 
ejected  James  Fullerton,  a  landholder  under  proprietary 
title,  from  his  land,  the  ejectment  suit  of  Jones  vs.  Fuller- 
ton  followed,  which  in  the  Perth  Amboy  court  resulted  in 
a  decision  in  favor  of  Fullerton.1      By  an  appeal  to  the 

'Hatfield,  Hist,  of  Elizabeth,  p.  242. 


181]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  181 

king  in  council  Jones  obtained  a  reversal  of  the  decision. 
This  decision  was  the  match  which  kindled  the  smouldering 
embers  of  anti-proprietary  discontent.  The  king  was  peti- 
tioned to  grant  relief  from  the  proprietors,  proprietary 
courts  were  overthrown,  and  scenes  of  violence  were  fre- 
quent. In  the  so-called  Clinker  Lot  Division,1  a  great  ex- 
tent of  territory  was  surveyed  and  divided  by  the  Elizabeth- 
town  claimants  in  utter  disregard  of  proprietary  rights. 

Indeed  the  Clinker  Lot  Right  men  did  not  recognize  the 
existence  of  such  an  inconvenient  abstraction  as  proprietary 
rights.  At  this  juncture,  as  has  been  said,  mainly  because 
of  the  inefficiency  of  the  proprietary  government,  both  the 
East  Jersey  and  West  Jersey  proprietors  transferred  their 
powers  of  government  to  the  crown,  retaining  unaltered 
their  rights  to  the  soil  of  the  province. 

In  the  instructions  of  1702  to  Lord  Cornbury,  the  first 
royal  governor  of  the  Jerseys,  it  was  ordered  that  the  right 
to  the  soil  should  be  secured  to  the  proprietors  by  the  pas- 
sage of  an  act  of  the  legislature.2  At  the  assembly's  first 
session  the  so-called  "  Long  Bill  "  was  prepared  for  this 
purpose,  and  in  part  provided  for  the  invalidation  of  claims 
to  land  based  on  the  Nicolls  patent.  Cornbury,  disgruntled 
at  what  he  regarded  as  lack  of  financial  support,  prorogued 
the  assembly  before  the  passage  of  the  "  Long  Bill,"  and 
this  bright  hope  for  a  definite  and  final  decision  of  the  con- 
flicting interests  was  shattered.  While  Cornbury  was  sur- 
rounded by  his  inner  circle  of  corrupt  politicians,  a  Colonial 
Tweed  Ring,  the  interests  of  the  proprietors  dwindled  to  a 
very  low  state.  During  his  administration  the  way  was 
paved  for  great  difficulties  to  the  proprietors  by  the  ill- 
considered  grants  of  the  two  large  Ramapo  and  New  Brit- 

1  Tanner,  op.  cil.,  p.  79.  *  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ii,  p.  517. 


lg2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [i%2 

ain  tracts.  During  Lieutenant  Governor  Ingoldsby's  regime 
an  ill-starred  attempt  to  secure  the  right  to  the  soil  to  the 
proprietors  was  made,  but  was  practically  smothered  in  an 
anti-proprietary  committee  of  the  assembly. 

Upon  the  succession  of  Governor  Hunter,  in  1710,  pro- 
prietary affairs  began  to  take  on  a  brighter  hue.  The  new 
governor  took  the  position  that  property  disputes  should  be 
settled,  not  by  legislative  action  but  by  judicial  decision.1 
An  excellent  theory  that  was,  and  just  also,  but  the  con- 
ditions were  too  stoutly  opposed  to  its  successful  and  satis- 
factory adoption  in  practice. 

Nevertheless  a  test  case  was  actually  tried  in  the  Supreme 
Court  with  the  natural  result,  a  proprietary  victory,  for  the 
court  was  admittedly  in  the  proprietors'  favor.  Numerous 
surveys  were  then  made  by  the  proprietors  and  the  dissen- 
sions seemed  in  a  fair  way  of  settlement:  but  such  a  sup- 
position subsequently  proved  to  be  a  delusion.  Although, 
in  1725,  a  case,  that  of  Vaughan  vs.  Woodruff,  had  been 
decided  against  the  Elizabethtown  adherents,  they  were 
averse  to  any  conclusive  settlement.  In  1731  several  suits 
of  ejectment  were  brought  against  them,  the  case  of  Lith- 
gow  vs.  Robinson  standing  as  the  test.  The  tables  were 
again  turned,  the  case  being  decided  against  the  proprietary 
interests.  Encouraged  by  this  decision,  the  Elizabethtown 
associates  began  bold  proceedings.  Funds  were  collected 
by  assessment  with  which  to  maintain  their  claims,  prepar- 
ations were  made  for  dividing  lands  not  parceled  out  in  the 
Clinker  Lot  survey,  and  in  1737  the  associates  themselves 
brought  an  action  against  one  Vail,  who  held  his  land 
under  proprietary  title. 

This  case  was  ultimately  decided  against  the  proprietors, 
but  to  offset  the  effect  of  the  reversals  in  the  cases  of  Lith- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  427. 


^3]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  1^3 

gow  vs.  Robinson,  and  Jackson  vs.  Vail,  the  proprietors 
had  met  favorable  decisions  in  other  cases,  resulting  from 
ejectment  proceedings  brought  by  them  against  some  of 
their  opponents. 

Such  was  the  early  history  of  the  Elizabethtown  purchase 
up  to  this  time  when  there  had  been  certain  decisions  ren- 
dered, some  in  favor  of  the  proprietors,  others  in  favor  of 
the  anti-proprietary  party. 

Little  time  need  be  spent  in  the  consideration  of  the  land 
troubles  arising  from  the  Monmouth  Patent  to  1738.  This 
tract  was  granted  in  1665  by  patent  from  Governor  Nicolls 
to  William  Goulding  and  others,  who  had  before  the  arrival 
of  the  English  expedition  purchased  the  land  from  Indians. 
It  included  lands  between  the  Raritan  and  "  Sandy  Point " 
and  extending  back  into  the  interior  for  some  distance.1 

Three  years  from  the  date  the  patentees  were  to  have 
settled  one  hundred  families  on  the  lands,  and  for  seven 
years  they  were  to  be  free  from  rent.2  When  Governor 
Carteret  arrived,  the  settlers  located  there  refused  to  recog- 
nize the  authority  of  the  proprietary  title  over  the  lands. 
When  the  quit- rents  were  demanded  in  1670  resolute  re- 
sistance was  offered,  but  an  agreement  was  finally  reached 
between  Berkeley  and  Carteret  and  the  Monmouth  pur- 
chasers, according  to  which  in  return  for  the  surrender  of 
the  claims  under  the  Nicolls  Patent  the  settlers  were  to 
have  their  land  granted  to  them  individually  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  Concessions.8  This  was  more  an 
apparent  than  real  settlement,  for  the  people  of  Middle- 
town  later  showed  their  dissatisfaction,  even  professing 
exemption  from  the  payment  of  quit-rents. 

'Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  61;  Whitehead,  "East  Jersey  under  the  Pro- 
prietors" p.  45. 
*  Parker,  N.  J.  Historical  Society  Proc,  series  ii,  vol.  iii,  p.  18. 
•Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 


184  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [184 

The  varying  successes  of  their  suits  seemed  to  have  tan- 
talized the  Elizabethtown  settlers  beyond  their  powers  of 
endurance,  and  they  determined  to  put  an  end  to  the  whole 
business  with  one  fell  swoop.  To  submit  their  case  directly 
to  the  king  was  the  determining  stroke  which  they  agreed 
upon.  Mr.  Fitch,  a  Norwalk  lawyer,  was  engaged  to  draw 
up  a  petition  to  the  crown.1  After  stating  the  early  his- 
tory of  the  grant  of  New  Jersey  and  the  Nicolls  patent, 
the  petition  asserts  that  Governor  Carteret  "  was  so  far 
from  insisting  on  the  said  Lord  Berkeley's  and  Sir  George 
Carteret's  right  to  the  lands  purchased  by  your  humble 
Petitioners'  Ancestors  "  that  he  purchased  Bailey's  share.2 
In  many  suits,  the  petition  continues,  the  petitioners  have 
been  successful,  but  by  their  continued  ejectment  suits  the 
"  would-be  proprietors  "  reduced  the  inhabitants  to  distress. 
The  governor,  chief  justice,  judges,  and  even  juries  were 
interested  against  the  petitioners,  and  hence  there  was  no 
prospect  for  the  distressed  subjects  except  to  be  heard  at 
"  The  Fountain  of  Justice  under  Your  Majesty's  Royal 
Care  and  Protection."  3  The  king  was  asked  to  hear  and 
determine  the  question,  appoint  disinterested  commissions 
from  the  colonies  to  decide  or  grant  some  other  relief. 
There  were  309  names  affixed  to  the  petition.  It  was  read 
in  council  July  19,  1744,  and  subsequently  referred  to  the 
Lords  of  the  Committee  of  Council  for  plantation  affairs, 
and  later  to  the  Lords  Commissioners  for  Trade  and  Plan- 
tations, but  beyond  that  nothing  is  known  of  it. 

The  settlers  who  claimed  lands  in  consequence  of  Indian 
purchase  alone  were  as  insistent  in  their  opposition  to  the 
proprietors  as  were  those  who  held  title  by  virtue  of  the  Nic- 
olls grants.    No  matter  under  what  claim  the  disputed  lands 

1  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  366.  *N.  J.  A.t  vol.  vi,  p.  209. 

*Ibid.t  p.  206  et  seq. 


185]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  ^5 

might  have  been  held,  the  people  usually  made  common 
cause  against  the  proprietors  and  joined  in  acts  of  violence 
at  about  the  same  time.  Because  of  an  absence  of  authentic 
records  to  prove  the  sale,  there  was  more  opportunity  for 
fraud  where  no  claim  except  mere  Indian  purchase  was  set 
up.  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  all  such  claims  were 
advanced  fraudulently.  The  undisturbed  enjoyment  of 
property  rights  convinced  many  that  the  proprietors  were 
making  unjust  encroachments  when  they  did  attempt  to 
assert  their  authority. 

One  of  the  directions  which  Berkeley  and  Carteret  laid 
down  for  the  governor,  council  and  inhabitants  of  New 
Jersey  in  1664  was,  that  "  the  land  is  to  be  purchased  from 
time  to  time,  as  there  shall  be  occasion  by  Governor  and 
Council  from  the  Indians,  in  the  name  of  us  the  Lords  Pro- 
prietors, and  then  every  individual  person  is  to  reimburse 
us,  at  the  same  rate  it  was  purchased."  '  Although  this 
rule  was  observed  for  the  most  part,  some  persons  con- 
tracted for  parcels  of  land  with  the  natives.  In  1683  the 
General  Assembly  of  East  Jersey  passed  a  law  forbidding 
this  practice.2  By  the  act,  those  who  made  such  agree- 
ments with  the  Indians  without  the  license  of  the  governor 
might  be  "  prosecuted  as  seditious  persons,  and  as  breakers 
of  the  King's  peace,  and  publick  peace,  and  safety  of  this 
Province."  In  accordance  with  this  act,  proprietary  gov- 
ernors issued  licenses  to  settlers  for  the  purchase  of  Indian 
lands,  upon  condition  that  such  transactions  conformed  to 
the  concessions  of  the  lords  proprietors  and  the  laws  of  the 
province.3 

In  the  instructions  to  Lord  Cornbury,  the  first  royal  gov- 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  pp.  37,  54. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  273. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  339. 


186  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [186 

ernor,  he  was  forbidden  to  allow  any  persons  except  the 
proprietors  or  their  agents  to  purchase  lands  from  the  In- 
dians. The  first  act  of  the  legislature  under  the  royal  gov- 
ernment was  "  for  regulating  the  Purchasing  of  Land  from 
the  Indians."1  It  was  provided  that  after  December  i, 
1703,  no  person  could  purchase  land  from  the  Indians  ex- 
cept he  had  a  right  of  propriety  and  obtained  a  license. 
For  every  purchase  contrary  to  the  act  forty  shillings  per 
acre  was  to  be  forfeited.  Unless  the  person  obtained  a 
grant  from  the  proprietors  within  six  months  after  the  pub- 
lication of  the  act,  improper  purchases  were  declared  void. 

The  law  was  in  favor  of  the  proprietors  and  left  no 
room  for  uncertainty  as  to  the  titles.  Deeds  to  land, 
unless  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  proprietors,  were 
clearly  void.  According  to  the  constitution  of  the  colony, 
it  mattered  not  whether  the  conveyances  were  lt  from  some 
private  foreign  stroling  Indians,  or  from  such  as  lived  on 
the  Lands,  and  might  have  had  some  Pretensions  to  sell 
them ;"  or  whether  the  purchases  were  "  made  for  small 
or  trifling  Sums,  or  for  such  Considerations  as  were  then 
usually  given  to  the  Indians." 2  Any  such  transactions 
were  void.  When  active  steps  were  taken  by  the  propri- 
etors to  assert  their  authority  the  colony  was  thrown  into 
turmoil. 

During  the  administration  of  Governor  Morris  numerous 
ejectment  suits  were  brought  by  proprietors  in  trespass 
cases.  Some  of  the  defendants  in  suits  from  1741  to  1743 
were  Joseph  Moss,  John  Morris,  Benjamin  Crowell,  Jere- 
miah Clarke,  Barent  Kiter,  John  Crain,  Benjamin  Man- 
ning, Wright  Skinner,  John  Clawson  and  Isaiah  Young- 
love.     Verdicts  for  the  plaintiffs  were  invariably  rendered, 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ii,  p.  517;  Allinson,  op.  cit.t  p.  I. 
1/6id.,  vol.  vi,  p.  300. 


187]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  187 

in  consequence  of  which  the  proprietors  believed  their  con- 
tentions substantiated.1  In  1745  eighteen  actions  of  eject- 
ment were  still  at  issue.2 

The  Elizabethtown  associates  complained  against  the 
juries  before  which  the  land  suits  had  been  tried.  The 
plea  was  made  that  artifice  and  influence  contrived  to  pre- 
vent trials  before  impartial  juries.  The  defendants  were 
"  inclined  to  believe  "  that  an  alteration  of  Somerset  and 
Morris  Counties  had  resulted  from  the  connivance  of  the 
proprietors.8  Middlesex,  rather  than  Somerset  or  Morris, 
juries  would  have  proved  more  satisfactory  to  the  associ- 
ates. Chafing  under  the  sting  of  supposedly  unjust  perse- 
cution, the  people  displayed  a  dangerous  temper  in  the  riots 
that  followed. 

In  1745  serious  difficulties  arose  on  the  part  of  the  occu- 
pants of  the  Elizabethtown  Purchase  tract,  where  Newark 
was  situated.  On  September  19,  1745,  Samuel  Baldwin,  a 
member  of  a  committee  of  Essex  County,  chosen  to  pro- 
tect the  interests  of  the  people  in  their  disputes  over  land, 
was  arrested  for  cutting  logs  on  the  so-called  Van  Gesin's 
tract.  The  proprietors  alleged  that  his  conduct  violated  a 
legislative  enactment  of  1713,  which  provided  that  any  man 
cutting  trees  on  lands  not  his  legal  property  "  should  be 
fined  twenty  shillings.'*  In  a  demonstration,  which  must 
have  loomed  before  the  little  town  of  Newark  as  a  danger- 
ous riot,  a  crowd  of  Baldwin's  sympathizers  broke  open  the 
county  jail  at  Newark,  where  he  was  confined,  and  released 
him.  Governor  Morris  thereupon  sent  a  message  to  the 
assembly  urging  that  the  riotous  condition  of  the  province 
be  earnestly  considered,  and  that  a  militia  act  or  other  laws 

1  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  48-52. 

*fbid.,  p.  52. 

*  Answer  to  the  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  35. 


188  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [^8 

should  be  passed  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  disorders.1 
To  this  suggestion  the  assembly  replied  on  October  3d,  by 
deploring  the  lawless  riot  at  Newark,  but  expressed  the 
opinion  that  existing  laws  were  sufficient  to  bring  their 
violators  to  justice.2  The  governor  obtained  little  satisfac- 
tion from  the  lower  house,  for  that  common  cause  of  dis- 
sension, the  pulling  of  the  purse-strings,  was  at  this  time  a 
bone  of  contention  between  them.  Morris  at  least  relieved 
his  mind  by  retorting  that  even  if  the  laws  were  sufficient 
to  punish  the  rioters  the  militia  act  then  in  force  could  not 
quell  such  an  uprising  as  pestered  the  colony,  nor  could  the 
"  Officers  and  Courts  necessary  to  convict  them  attend  that 
service — without  salaries  or  some  provision  to  defray  the 
charge  of  prosecution,  which  are  not  provided,  nor,  as  ap- 
pears, intended  to  be  provided,  by  your  house."  s 

His  Excellency  ordered  the  attorney  general  to  prosecute 
any  who  had  been  active  in  the  riot,  and  at  the  same  time, 
with  the  advice  of  his  council,  directed  the  Essex  County 
sheriff  to  be  diligent  in  the  apprehension  of  the  disturbers 
of  the  peace  and  violators  of  the  law,  committing  all  such 
to  any  jail  they  thought  most  proper.4  The  diligence  of  the 
sheriff  resulted  in  the  arrest  and  commitment  to  the  Newark 
jail  of  Robert  Young,  Thomas  Sarjeant  and  Nehemiah 
Baldwin.  But  of  these  prisoners,  Baldwin  was  boldly  res- 
cued while  being  taken  by  the  sheriff  from  the  jail  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  the  other  two  were  released  from  the 
jail  by  a  crowd  of  rioters.  Again  the  governor  appealed 
to  the  legislature  to  take  steps  to  prevent  the  defiance  of 
government  and  contempt  of  laws,  this  time  with  more 
satisfactory  results.  The  assembly  evidently  saw  the  light, 
for  a  bill  for  "  Better  Settling  and  Regulating  the  Militia  " 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  379.  iIbid.i  p.  250. 

9 Ibid,,  p.  264.  '/did.,  p.  400. 


189]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  ^9 

was  ordered  to  be  brought  in.  Indeed  the  tone  of  the 
assembly  was  so  patronizing  as  to  arouse  suspicion. 

Several  publications  now  appeared  which  were  designed 
to  justify  the  acts  and  claims  of  the  contending  parties.  A 
communication  of  the  rioters,  in  February,  1746,  upheld 
the  questionable  proceedings  in  Essex  County  on  the  ground 
that  the  proprietors  threatened  ejectment  proceedings 
against  all  who  would  not  subscribe  to  certain  unreasonable 
demands. 

It  was  thus  the  exasperation  of  the  people,  that  refused 
to  contain  itself  longer,  because  their  "  Rights,  Properties 
and  Possessions  "  had  been  invaded  by  the  proprietors.  In 
a  lengthy  statement  sent  forth  from  a  council  meeting  at 
Perth  Amboy  in  March,  1746,  the  proprietors,  after  re- 
hearsing the  history  of  the  titles  in  dispute,  pertinently  re- 
marked that  if  deeds  were  taken  based  on  any  titles  what- 
soever, except  "  In  the  Name  of  the  Lords,  Proprietors  of 
East  New  Jersey,"  according  to  an  act  of  1683  such  trans- 
actions were  criminal,1  and  by  an  act  of  1703  were  invalid 
unless  confirmed  by  the  general  proprietors  within  six 
months  from  the  date  of  the  act.  Responsibility  for  the 
confusion  in  the  province  was  shifted  to  the  rioters,  who 
had  "  Set  up  sham  deeds  procured  from  strolling  Indians 
for  a  few  Bottles  of  Rum."  A  tract  which  went  by  the 
name  of  the  Horseneck  Purchase  figured  largely  in  the 
ejectment  proceedings  complained  against  by  the  people. 
James  Alexander,  Robert  Hunter  Morris  and  David  Ogden 
were  the  three  proprietors  most  heavily  involved  in  this 
tract.  According  to  the  proprietary  statement  these  men, 
with  Ogden  as  negotiator,  endeavored  to  have  certain  con- 
ciliatory propositions  accepted  by  the  people,  but  failed.2 

1  For  the  Act  of  1683,  see  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  302. 
lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  302. 


190  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [190 

Consequently  ejectment  proceedings  were  instituted,  in  any 
or  all  of  which  the  issue  might  have  been  joined,  an  appeal 
to  England  taken,  if  so  desired,  and  a  settlement  definitely 
obtained.  The  poor  deluded  people  were  urged  by  the  pro- 
prietors "  To  flie  to  the  Mercy  of  the  Laws  for  the  Expia- 
tion of  their  criminal  riots  and  to  the  Mercy  of  the  Owners 
of  the  Lands  they  have  been  pillaging." 

Two  formal  petitions,  prepared  by  some  of  the  rioters, 
were  brought  into  the  assembly  and  read  on  April  17,  1746.1 
It  was  urged  in  these  documents  that  the  lower  house 
should  grant  relief  by  passing  an  act  to  stay  all  processes 
against  them  until  the  pleasure  of  the  king  should  be  known. 
One  petition  claimed  to  be  from  inhabitants  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  colony ;  the  other  from  "  eight  persons  chosen 
by  a  great  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  northern  part 
of  this  province,  a  committee  to  represent  and  act  for  them." 

On  May  26,  1746,  Samuel  Nevill  made  an  elaborate  ar- 
gument before  the  assembly  against  the  petitions.2  Para- 
graph by  paragraph  both  petitions  were  considered  by  the 
speaker  and  answered.  He  concluded  by  moving  that  they 
be  rejected,  but  that  the  governor  "  should  extend  His 
Majesty's  mercy  to  those  people  by  a  General  Pardon, 
Under  Such  Restrictions  and  upon  Such  Conditions  as  to 
his  Excellency  Shall  Seem  proper."  When  a  vote  was 
taken  two  days  later,  Nevill  and  Kearney,  both  East  Jersey 
proprietors,  were  the  only  assemblymen  who  voted  against 
sending  the  petitions  to  the  governor  and  council,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners.3  The  move- 
ment toward  an  act  of  pardon  at  this  time  progressed  no 
farther  than  the  preparation  of  such  a  measure.     Taken  in 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  17,  1746. 

•  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p,  408. 

•  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  28,  1746. 


I9I]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  igi 

connection  with  the  impossibility  of  reaching  an  agree- 
ment between  the  council  and  assembly  upon  a  measure  to 
prevent  future  riots,  this  did  not  bode  well  for  the  peace  of 
the  province. 

In  April,  1746,  a  communication  was  sent  to  the  "  House 
of  Representatives "  signed  by  seven  rioters,  reviewing 
Ogden's  former  proposal  of  a  trial  at  law  and  professing 
their  willingness  to  join  in  issue  according  to  the  proposal. 
A  preference  was  stated  that  the  action  be  brought  against 
Francis  Speirs,  of  the  Horseneck  Tract.  The  general  pro- 
prietors agreed  to  bring  an  ejectment  suit  against  Speirs 
and  announced  that  their  attorney  would  be  at  the  next 
Supreme  Court  at  Perth  Amboy  to  sign  the  general  rule 
for  joining  issue  in  the  said  action.  Later  the  rioters  com- 
plained that  all  the  lawyers  were  engaged  in  their  opponent's 
cause  and  desired  the  proprietors  to  release  one  of  their 
attorneys  that  he  might  be  engaged  to  appear  for  the 
prospective  defendants.  That  the  proprietors  refused  to  do 
on  the  ground  that  all  those  connected  with  their  side  of  the 
case  had  been  in  charge  of  their  affairs  for  some  years,  that 
there  were  many  other  attorneys  in  New  Jersey  and  New 
York  not  engaged  by  "  fee  or  interest  for  the  proprietors," 
and  that  the  Supreme  Court  would  require  attorneys,  if  nec- 
essary, to  serve  the  committee  of  the  rioters.1  These  pre- 
liminaries all  came  to  naught,  for  none  of  the  rioters  made 
application  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  attorneys  nor  took 
any  steps  to  have  a  trial  on  their  claims. 

Governor  Morris  died  on  May  21,  1746,  and  when  Presi- 
dent Hamilton,  acting  governor,  met  the  assembly  in  June, 
he  called  their  attention  to  the  distressed  condition  of  the 
province,  the  inefficiency  of  all  methods  of  relief  and  urged 
them  to  take  rigorous  action,  lest  they  suffer  the  resentment 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  392. 


I92  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [192 

of  the  king  and  Parliament.  Later  in  the  year,  at  President 
Hamilton's  request,1  Alexander  and  Morris  wrote  to  the 
lords  of  trade  complaining  of  the  riots,  and  of  the  assem- 
bly's inactivity,  prophesying  too  that  unless  quelled  the  dis- 
orders would  spread  and  effect  the  dependence  of  the  plan- 
tations.2 While  this  letter  to  England  was  tinted  to  exag- 
gerate the  conditions,  nevertheless  it  was  true  that  the 
colony  was  not  becoming  quieted.  On  the  first  day  of  No- 
vember the  assembly,  having  taken  no  action  on  the  riots, 
asked  to  be  dismissed,  and  had  their  request  granted. 
Shortly  after,  the  jail  in  Somerset  County  was  robbed  of  a 
prisoner,  and  threats  were  made  against  Nevill,  then  a 
judge  for  Middlesex  County.  The  only  measure  which  the 
president  could  take  was  to  issue  a  proclamation  forbid- 
ding the  colonists  to  join  the  rioters,  or  assemble  with  them. 
But  disturbances  were  beginning  in  Morris  County,  where 
one  Dalrymple  with  his  family  was  unceremoniously  ousted 
from  property  which  he  had  held  under  title  from  the  East 
Jersey  proprietors.3 

When  the  legislature  met,  in  May,  1747,  the  president 
again  exhorted  the  assembly  to  take  measures  to  prevent 
riots  and  remedy  the  distracted  state  of  the  province,  for 
the  king  would  not  allow  his  laws  to  be  trampled  under 
foot.4  Upon  the  plea  that  this  session  had  been  called  only 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  troops,  the  lower  house  deter- 
mined to  take  prudent  measures  at  the  next  session,  if  the 
rioting  continued.5 

The  inactivity  of  the  assembly  was  apparently  interpreted 
as  a  consent  to  riot  by  the  disturbing  elements.  Within 
a  month  from  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  one  of  the 

1  President  Hamilton  was  ill. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  419.  *Ibid.,  p.  427. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  May  6,  1747.  */bid.,  May  8,  1747. 


*93l  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  193 

most  serious  of  the  demonstrations  occurred  at  Perth  Am- 
boy  in  Middlesex  County.  A  large  number  of  armed  men 
marched  against  the  jail,  and  contrary  to  the  warning  of  the 
sheriff  forcibly  opened  it  and  released  one  Bainbridge,  held 
under  indictment  for  participation  in  the  attack  on  the  Som- 
erset County  jail.  The  disturbances  reduced  even  Chief 
Justice  Robert  Hunter  Morris  to  pessimism,  for,  in  July, 
1747,  he  wrote  to  James  Alexander  that,  although  the  as- 
sembly was  about  to  meet,  he  had  no  hopes  of  any  effectual 
measures  resulting,  and  that  the  Grand  Jury  at  Amboy 
would  hardly  indict  the  rioters,  much  less  hold  them  on  a 
charge  of  high  treason,  the  indictment  which  Judge  Nevill 
had  urged  upon  the  jury  to  return. 

Possessors  of  lands  in  the  disturbed  counties  confessed 
that  they  had  joined  others  in  perpetrating  what  they  knew 
were  acts  contrary  to  the  king's  laws,  but  yet  they  peti- 
tioned the  legislature  for  redress  of  grievances.1  In  truth 
the  outlook  for  the  peace  of  the  province  was  not  encour- 
aging, for  with  no  remedy  in  sight,  "  persons  who  had  long 
holden  under  the  proprietors  were  forcibly  ejected;  others 
compelled  to  take  leases  from  landlords,  whom  they  were 
not  disposed  to  acknowledge;  whilst  those  who  had  cour- 
age to  stand  out,  were  threatened  with,  and  in  many  in- 
stances, received  personal  violence."  Under  such  condi- 
tions was  convened  at  Burlington,  in  August,  1747,  the  first 
session  of  the  legislature  to  meet  under  Jonathan  Belcher, 
the  Massachusetts  Puritan. 

The  accession  of  Belcher  had  been  regarded  with  great 
satisfaction  by  the  disaffected  persons  in  the  colony,  but  so 
far  as  can  be  ascertained  their  joy  was  unavailing.  As  ap- 
pearances went,  it  was,  however,  not  without  foundation, 
because  Belcher  interested  himself  in  the  First  Presbyterian 

1  Robert  H.  Morris  Papers,  vol.  ii,  p.  33. 


I94  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [194 

Church  of  Elizabethtown,  of  which  congregation  many  of 
the  defendants  against  the  proprietors  were  communicants.1 

But  the  governor's  first  message  to  the  legislature  must 
have  left  a  discouraging  ring  in  the  ears  of  the  Elizabeth- 
town  claimants.  A  committee  of  the  rioters  sent  a  con- 
gratulatory message  to  Belcher  soon  after  his  arrival,  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  under  his  wise  administration  the 
disorders  which  they  regretted,  would  cease,  and  that  the 
"  Lord  of  Hosts  "  would  "  Arise  for  the  help  and  succor 
of  the  oppressed  poor  and  crushed  needy  ones."  2  The  good 
Jonathan  assured  the  rioters  that  his  duty  led  him  to  sup- 
port the  king's  authority  and  punish  "  breakers  of  the  public 
peace  "  but,  with  evident  faith  in  the  maxim  that  "  soft 
words  turn  away  wrath,  but  the  wringing  of  the  nose  brings 
forth  blood  ",  he  promised  them  his  protection  "in  all  things 
consistent  with  Reason  and  Justice."  3  In  a  second  dutiful 
petition  to  the  governor  several  of  the  distressed  settlers 
frankly  confessed  that  they  had  no  intention  or  desire  of 
sundering  the  bonds  that  held  them  to  His  Majesty's  au- 
thority, but  had  acted  only  in  defence  of  their  own  and  their 
poor  neighbors'  rights,  which  were  in  danger  of  suffering 
great  harm. 

In  his  first  address  to  the  legislature  delivered  in  August, 
1747,  Governor  Belcher  urged  that  all  departments  of  the 
government  unite  in  an  endeavor  to  suppress  the  disorders 
and  restore  quiet.4  To  this  address  the  council  pledged  its 
support,  and  the  assembly  acted  in  a  manner  which  presaged 
and  augured  well  for  a  harmonious  administration  under 
the  new  royal  executive.  The  assembly  notified  the  coun- 
cil that  it  had  appointed  a  committee  of  nine  to  confer  with 

1  Hatfield,  Elizabethtown,  p.  372. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  63. 

*Ibid.,  p.  65.  *Ibid.,  p.  21. 


195]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  195 

a  committee  of  the  council  upon  the  subject  as  to  the  ways 
to  suppress  riots  and  disorders,  meetings  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee to  be  held  at  the  house  of  the  Widow  Hunloke  in 
Burlington.1  Much  to  the  council's  impatience  the  proposed 
meetings  were  deferred,  various  excuses  being  given  by  the 
assembly.  On  December  10th,  after  the  upper  house  had 
received  news  of  a  riot  in  Hunterdon  County,  it  pressed 
upon  the  assembly  the  urgent  need  of  meetings  of  the  com- 
mittees.2 The  assembly  ultimately  condescended  and  meet- 
ings were  held. 

It  had  been  rumored  that  a  "  tumultous  procession  "  of 
rioters  was  about  to  take  up  the  march  to  lay  their  grievances 
before  the  legislature.  The  joint  committee  recommended 
that  each  house  pass  resolutions  discouraging  any  such 
demonstration.  Resolutions  were  passed,  pointing  out  that 
such  procedure  would  be  not  only  dangerous  to  the  peace 
of  the  province,  but  would  also  be  an  infringement  on  the 
liberty  of  the  legislature,  inasmuch  as  the  intended  proces- 
sion was  desired  to  awe  and  influence  the  council  and  as- 
sembly.8 In  January,  1748,  there  was  laid  before  the  joint 
committee  a  statement  of  facts,  prepared  by  the  council 
committee,  concerning  the  riots  and  the  remedies  attempted 
by  the  government  to  put  an  end  to  them.  To  what  extent 
the  work  and  influence  of  the  joint  committee  was  respon- 
sible for  two  acts  which  were  now  passed  by  the  legisla- 
ture, designed  to  put  an  end  to  the  disorders,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  state. 

The  first  act  was  for  "  Suppressing  and  Preventing  of 
Riots,  Tumults  and  other  disorders  within  this  Colony.,, 
This  measure  had  passed  the  second  reading  at  the  previous 
session,  after  which  it  was  ordered  printed  for  public  per- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  539.  *I6id.,  p.  553. 

%Ibid.y  vol.  vii,  p.  559. 


196  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [196 


i 

5* 


usal  and  its  reconsideration  postponed  to  the  next  meeting. 
At  the  session  in  February,  1748,  it  passed  the  three  read- 
ings and  received  the  governor's  assent  in  remarkably  quick 
time.  The  measure  was  modeled  after  the  riot  act  of  Great 
Britain,  which  declared  it  a  felony  "  for  twelve  or  more, 
tumultously  assembled  together,  to  refuse  to  disperse  upon 
the  requisition  of  the  civil  authority,  by  proclamation,  in 
form  set  forth  in  the  act."  2  Those  refusing  to  disperse 
within  an  hour  after  the  order  were  liable  to  suffer  death. 
This  act  was  to  be  read  once  at  every  session  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  Circuit  Court  and  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  in  the 
province.  It  was  to  continue  in  force  for  five  years.  The 
other  act,  passed  at  the  same  time,  provided  for  the  pardon 
of  "  Persons  guilty  of  the  Insurrections,  Riots,  Tumults 
and  other  disorders,  raised  and  committed  in  this  Province/' 
The  measure  recites  that  many  are  thus  guilty,  and  as 
some  had  prayed  the  governor  for  relief,  this  free  pardon 
was  granted  them.  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  or  com- 
missioners appointed  for  the  purpose,  were  to  receive  par- 
dons and  administer  the  oaths  to  the  penitent  culprits. 

The  mad  rush  for  executive  clemency  which  some  had 
hoped  for  did  not  materialize,  and  it  was  not  until  the  next 
August  that  any  applied  to  take  advantage  of  the  act  of 
grace,  when  nine  rioters  entered  into  bond  and  took  the 
oaths.3  Affairs  were  in  an  unhappy  state,  and  Governor 
Belcher,  in  a  quandary,  wrote  to  Chief  Justice  Kinsey  of 
Pennsylvania  for  his  assistance  and  advice  in  the  difficult 
juncture.4  The  council  advised  the  governor  not  to  dis- 
solve the  assembly  until  the  rioters  had  accepted  the  act  of 
pardon,  and  the  governor  acted  accordingly.     Some  of  the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  24,  1746.  ■  Ibid. 

•  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  4. 

4 Belcher  Papers,  Jan.  11,  1748. 


igy]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  197 

prominent  councilmen  felt  strongly  that,  should  the  assem- 
bly be  dissolved  and  new  elections  be  held,  noting  would 
predominate  at  the  elections  and  there  would  be  returned  to 
the  assembly  a  large  anti-proprietary  majority.  But  that 
was  but  one  horn  of  the  dilemma.  When  this  same  assem- 
bly met  at  its  next  session,  what  should  be  done  with  the 
rioters  who  had  not  accepted  the  act  of  grace,  and  they  were 
decidedly  in  the  majority?  James  Alexander,  the  promi- 
nent councilman,  took  the  ground  that,  once  ignored, 
clemency  could  not  be  offered  again.  His  solution  natur- 
ally reverted  to  the  necessity  of  strengthening  the  hands  of 
government  so  that  guilty  persons  could  be  not  only  taken, 
but  kept  and  brought  to  justice.  That  something  needed 
to  be  done  to  strengthen  the  "  hands  of  government  "  was 
evident,  for  they  now  began  to  fight  among  themselves. 

The  disturbances  continued,  new  outbreaks  occurring 
during  November,  1748,  in  the  vicinity  of  Newark  and 
Perth  Amboy.1  These  called  forth  a  memorial  from  the 
East  Jersey  proprietors  to  the  governor  asking  him  to  inter- 
pose in  support  of  the  king's  authority,  and  arguing  that 
the  refusal  to  accept  the  act  of  grace  was  a  clear  mark  of 
an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  culprits  to  throw  off  their 
dependence  on  the  English  crown.  This  prompted  the  gov- 
ernor to  again  lecture  the  legislature,  the  assembly  in  par- 
ticular, on  the  necessity  of  suppressing  the  "  dreadful  con- 
fusions ".  The  council's  response  was  considerate,  but  the 
assembly  insinuated  that  the  laws  were  not  fully  executed, 
and  said  that  if  this  defect  was  remedied,  the  laws  still  prov- 
ing to  be  inefficient,  they  would  consider  the  matter  at  the 
next  session.2 

1JV.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  178. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  7,  1748. 


I98  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [198 

This  reply  of  the  assembly  afforded  ample  opportunity 
for  a  conflict  between  the  houses,  for  the  council  imme- 
diately defended  the  executive  officials  of  the  colony,  main- 
taining that  more  effectual  enforcement  of  laws  could  be 
obtained  only  by  added  appropriations  for  the  support  of 
the  government.  Such  an  imputation  upon  the  assembly's 
control  of  the  purse-strings  was  resented  and  brought  forth 
the  resolution  among  others,  "  that  this  House  have  a  right 
to  enjoy  their  own  sentiments,  in  all  matters  and  things 
that  shall  come  before  them,  without  being  accountable  or 
censured  by  the  Council  for  the  same."  *  The  council, 
convinced  that  the  assembly  was  guilty  of  a  brazen  neglect 
of  duty,  urged  the  governor  to  join  in  laying  the  condition 
of  the  province  before  the  king  and  his  ministers.  The 
governor  signified  his  intention  of  trying  one  more  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature  before  appealing  to  the  king.  At  this 
juncture  the  unusual  happened.  The  governor  and  council 
came  into  conflict!  After  receiving  notice  from  the  coun- 
cil that  it  wished  to  give  him  advice,  Governor  Belcher 
proudly  informed  them  that  when  he  wanted  their  advice, 
he  would  ask  for  it.  A  few  days  later,  December  22,  1748, 
the  council  communicated  to  Belcher  the  opinion  that  his 
stand  regarding  advice  was  wrong.  Again  the  council 
pressed  for  immediate  application  to  the  king. 

Duty  so  strongly  impressed  the  councilmen,  that  not- 
withstanding the  governor's  refusal  to  join  with  them,  an 
address  was  sent  to  the  king  and  also  to  the  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford, then  Secretary  of  State,  urging  that  such  measures  be 
taken  as  should  be  thought  best  to  secure  peace  in  the 
province.2  At  about  the  same  time,  in  December,  1748, 
the  council  of  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  also  sent  a  peti- 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  64. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  183-191. 


I99]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  199 

tion  to  the  king,  asking  his  protection  for  their  property  at 
this  time,  when  the  colonial  laws  were  unavailing  and  it  was 
impossible  to  execute  them.  The  importance  of  the  matter 
was  urged  upon  Ferdinand  John  Paris,  the  London  agent 
of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors,  by  Alexander  and  Morris. 
Their  plan  was  that  Paris  should  persuade  the  Secretary 
of  State  or  the  Board  of  Trade  to  order  Governor  Belcher 
to  call  the  assembly  to  action,  and  if  it  refused  to  act,  to 
threaten  the  sending  of  troops  for  the  restoration  of  order. 
Any  hope  the  proprietors  had  of  such  strenuous  action  was 
punctured  by  Paris's  letter  to  .Alexander,  stating  that  no 
more  than  a  "  strong  instruction  "  from  the  king  to  Bel- 
cher to  call  the  assembly  could  be  expected. 

The  suspicion  with  which  the  proprietors  began  to  regard 
the  governor  became  evident.  A  new  assembly  had  been 
convened  in  February,  1749,  but  had  taken  no  measures 
against  the  rioters,  which  fact,  it  was  charged,  was  a  vir- 
tual confirmation  of  their  case.  The  proprietary  agent, 
dutiful  to  his  clients,  promised  to  look  with  diligence  for 
any  possible  complaints  against  Belcher,  in  order  that  the 
scale  might  be  turned  against  him.1  But  the  imputations 
against  the  governor  were  somewhat  shattered  by  his  mes- 
sage to  the  lords  of  trade,  sent  on  April  22,  1749.  The  as- 
sembly, he  said,  had  no  regard  for  what  he  directed,  there 
was  no  hope  that  they  would  raise  money  to  protect  the 
jails  and  quell  the  disturbances,  and  consequently  the  king's 
special  orders  would  be  awaited  with  great  expectancy. 
Notwithstanding  this,  Alexander  and  Morris  sent  to  Paris 
some  charges  which  could  be  used  against  the  governor.* 
In  justification  of  his  action  in  not  joining  the  council  in 
their  address  to  the  king,  Belcher  himself  wrote  to  the 
Duke  of  Bedford  that  he  regarded  it  more  for  the  king's 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  238.  t/did.,  p.  251. 


200  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [200 

honor  that  action  should  be  separate,  basing  his  belief  on 
his  interpretation  of  the  character  of  the  colonial  govern- 
ment. He  renewed  his  request  for  special  orders  from  the 
king.  The  lords  of  trade  began  their  consideration  of  the 
conditions  in  New  Jersey. 

Dated  June  i,  1750,  the  report  of  the  Lords  Commis- 
sioners for  Trade  and  Plantations  upon  the  condition  of 
New  Jersey  was  sent  to  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of 
Council.1  The  report  gave  in  detail  the  basis  of  the  pro- 
prietary claims  and  a  lengthy  statement  of  the  disorders  in 
the  province.  After  a  review  of  the  claims  of  the  rioters 
the  report,  little  sparing  the  feelings  of  the  Elizabethtown 
and  other  claimants,  characterized  them  as  a  "  Set  of  Free- 
booters who  enter  upon  any  lands,  and  cut  down  and  de- 
stroy the  timber,  tho'  the  lands  have  been  ever  so  long 
granted  to  others  under  the  King's  title." 

It  was  the  lords'  opinion  that  the  laws  passed  in  New 
Jersey  designed  to  check  the  disorders  should  be  disallowed, 
in  accordance  with  a  report  of  the  attorney  general  and 
solictor  general.  The  rise  and  progress  of  the  outbreaks 
were  due  principally  to  the  weakness  of  the  government, 
consequent  upon  the  necessity  of  the  governor's  either  obey- 
ing the  popular  will  or  being  refused  support.2  As  to  rem- 
edies, the  report  declared  the  most  efficient  would  be  to 
send  a  "  sufficient  military  force  under  the  direction  of  a 
commander  to  be  appointed  for  that  service."  Or  four  com- 
panies from  New  York  could  be  sent  under  the  command 
of  an  authorized  person,  allowed  to  act  independently  by 
having  a  competent  salary  settled  upon  him  at  home.  Or 
if  it  was  believed  that  either  of  the  above  remedies  would  not 
be  efficient,  New  Jersey  might  be  re-united  to  the  govern- 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  466.  *Ibid.,  p.  521. 


2oi]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  20I 

ment  of  New  York  according  to  the  plan  in  vogue  before 
1738. 

The  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  as  a 
result  of  the  above  report,  in  July,  1751,  directed  the  at- 
torney general  and  solicitor  general  to  prepare  a  draft  of  a 
commission  to  be  issued  for  investigating  the  grievances 
of  the  king's  New  Jersey  subjects.1  The  Lords  Commis- 
sioners for  Trade  and  Plantation  were  ordered  to  prepare 
the  draft  of  an  additional  instruction  to  be  sent  to  the  gov- 
ernor of  New  Jersey.  This  instruction  was  to  be  drawn  so 
as  to  include  an  expression  of  the  king's  displeasure  with 
the  assembly  for  its  inactivity,  a  notification  to  the  inhabi- 
tants that  a  commission  had  been  ordered  to  inquire  into 
their  grievances,  and  a  declaration  that  the  king  had  in  con- 
sideration "  the  granting  an  Act  of  Indemnity  to  all  those 
who  shall  appear  to  have  merited  the  same,"  with  the  added 
injunction  that  the  people  behave  themselves  for  the  future. 

The  commission  intended  for  the  investigation  was  pre- 
pared by  the  attorney  general  and  solicitor  general,  and 
submitted  to  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil.2 It  empowered  the  prospective  investigators  to  make  a 
full  and  impartial  report  upon  New  Jersey  conditions.  To 
this  end,  they  were  granted  by  the  commission,  as  drawn, 
full  power  to  receive  necessary  information,  to  examine 
witnesses  and  to  send  for  persons,  books,  papers  or  records 
that  might  be  useful.  This  tentative  commission  was  re- 
ferred to  the  lords  of  trade,  who,  in  reporting  it  to  the 
committee  of  council,  gave  the  opinion  that,  if  it  was  exe- 
cuted, 

it  must  be  by  the  appointment  of  such  persons  to  be  Commis- 
sioners as   shall  be  men   of  known   Prudence,   Temper  and 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  322.  %IHd.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  58. 


202  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [202 

Ability,  that  these  Commissioners  should  be  chosen  out  of 
some  of  the  neighboring  colonies  or  sent  from  hence,  as  your 
Lordships  shall  judge  most  proper,  but  we  are  inclined  to 
think  that  persons  sent  from  hence  would  be  the  least  liable 
to  suspicion  of  Interest,  Prejudice  or  Partiality.1 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  commission  authorized  only 
an  inquiry  into  the  grievances  in  New  Jersey,  upon  which 
subject  the  lords  of  trade  had  already  made  an  exhaustive 
report,  it  was  not  frankly  recommended,  and  was  never 
issued.  While  the  plan  of  appointing  a  committee  to  probe 
New  Jersey's  affairs  was  under  consideration,  Belcher  pro- 
posed to  Lord  Hardwicke  three  persons  for  the  committee.2 
They  were  De  Lancey,  chief  justice  of  New  York;  Fitch, 
deputy  governor  of  Connecticut;  Saltonstall,  first  judge  of 
Massachusetts  Bay;  all  three  recommended  as  gentlemen 
of  capacity  and  integrity. 

The  lords  of  trade  viewed  favorably,  however,  a  sugges- 
tion of  the  attorney  general  and  solicitor  general  that  one 
of  the  disputed  property  cases  be  brought  up  for  a  final 
judicial  determination,  which  when  settled  would  serve  as 
a  rule  for  all  other  cases.3  An  additional  instruction  con- 
formable to  that  idea  was  recommended,  but  never  issued. 
This  plausible  theory  of  a  guiding  judicial  decision  had 
always  worked  miserably  in  practise.  The  difficulty  was 
that  both  sides  could  point  to  many  such  decisions  to  prove 
their  claims.  The  recommendation,  if  acted  upon,  would 
doubtless  have  proved  insufficient. 

In  the  meantime,  while  the  authorities  at  Whitehall  were 
evolving  ways  and  means  for  the  reduction  of  the  restless 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  90. 
■ Belcher  Papers •,  Dec.  3,  1751. 
tN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  90. 


203]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  2O3 

Jerseymen,  there  was  no  abatement  of  that  restlessness  in 
the  colony.  The  disturbers  of  the  peace  indeed  continued 
to  regard  legislative  apathy  as  a  commission  allowing  them 
to  defy  the  law.  The  counties  of  Essex,  Middlesex  and 
Bergen  particularly  became  the  scenes  of  violence.  Two 
men,  Ball  and  Burwell,  having  been  imprisoned,  were  res- 
cued, but  later  returned  to  confinement  voluntarily  and  pe- 
titioned for  speedy  trial.  The  assembly  urged  the  governor 
to  issue  a  commission  for  holding  a  court  of  oyer  and  ter- 
miner in  Essex  County,  but  acting  upon  the  council's  ad- 
vice, he  refused  on  the  ground  that  lawful  and  impartial 
juries  could  not  be  obtained  in  the  county  of  Essex.1  In 
September,  1749,  the  governor  again  appealed  to  the  as- 
sembly to  take  action,  but  fruitlessly.  The  appeal  was  re- 
newed in  February,  1750,  after  a  riot  at  Horseneck,  but 
elicited  the  response  from  the  assembly  that  legal  prosecu- 
tion was  the  only  method  to  be  pursued,  and  the  disturb- 
ances might  have  been  checked,  if  the  governor  had  heeded 
the  request  for  a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer  in  Essex 
County.1 

After  a  brief  respite  from  disturbances,  there  occurred 
in  April,  1752,  another  jail-breaking  and  the  release  of  a 
prisoner  committed  for  high  treason  at  Perth  Amboy.  Al- 
though the  governor  had  issued  his  warrant  that  extra 
precautions  be  taken  to  hold  the  prisoner,  one  Wickoff,  in 
confinement,  he  was  spirited  away  before  the  extra  precau- 
tions could  be  taken.  The  council,  on  being  asked  by  the 
governor  for  advice,  stated  that  inasmuch  as  orders  might 
be  expected  from  the  home  government  at  any  time,  they 
should  be  awaited.8    Belcher  continued  during  the  summer 

'AT.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  402. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  21-27,  1750. 

* N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  379. 


204  THB  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [204 

of  1752  patiently  to  ply  the  London  authorities  for  orders. 
The  council  now  despaired  of  any  good  coming  from  the 
assembly,  told  the  governor  it  would  be  useless  to  have 
another  session  of  the  legislature  to  consider  the  state  of 
the  colony,  and  became  content  with  the  suggestion  that  the 
attorney  general  "  should  proceed  according  to  the  known 
laws  of  the  land." 

When  the  assembly  did  meet  in  May,  1753,  it  listened  to 
the  regular  exhortation  that  some  action  should  be  taken 
to  bring  the  colony  out  of  its  difficulties.  But  after  this 
session  of  the  legislature  the  governor  could  write  to  the 
lords  of  trade  merely  the  oft-repeated  news  that  nothing 
had  been  done  to  check  the  riots,  and  make  the  oft-re- 
peated request  that  the  king's  orders  be  sent. 

Early  in  1754  Hunterdon  County  became  the  scene  of 
disorders,  and  Governor  Belcher  issued  a  proclamation 
commanding  the  magistrate  to  punish  the  guilty  persons.1 
One  year  later  another  disturbance  occurred  in  the  same 
county,  and  there  followed  the  usual  procedure — the  chief 
executive's  request  for  advice  from  the  council,  and  the 
subsequent  issue  of  a  proclamation  ordering  the  magistrates 
to  be  diligent  and  the  sheriff  to  suppress  the  riots.2 

By  August,  1755,  after  more  than  half  a  century  of 
gloomy  land  dissensions,  the  horizon  began  to  clear,  and 
there  came  a  relief  from  the  intermittent  distractions.  This 
fortunate  turn  in  affairs  was  due  particularly  to  the  im- 
pending struggle  with  France  and  the  development  of  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  people  to  submit  their  land 
title  cases  to  the  regular  course  of  judicial  procedure.  The 
Elizabethtown  claimants  filed  their  elaborate  answer  to  the 
proprietary  bill  in  chancery,  and  Essex  County,  the  center 
of  the  agitation,  was  disposed  to  wait  hopefully  for  the 

XN.  J.  A.t  vol.  xvi,  p.  433.  3 Ibid.,  p.  513. 


205]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  205 

results  of  that  suit.  In  other  counties,  many  former  asso- 
ciates surrendered  their  claims  to  the  proprietors.  Not  only 
were  the  people  becoming  weary  of  the  profitless  struggle, 
but  they  were  obliged  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  absorb- 
ing events  of  the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War.  As  early  as 
August,  1753,  Belcher,  doubtless  encouraged  by  the  less 
frequent  occurrence  of  riots,  had  written  to  the  lords  of 
trade  that  the  province  was  in  a  "  better  state  of  peace  and 
tranquility/'  and  that  the  proprietors  should  improve  this 
excellent  opportunity  by  bringing  forward  their  actions  of 
trespass  and  ejectment.1 

Over  a  year  passed  before  an  answer  from  the  lords  of 
trade  to  the  above  letter  reached  New  Jersey.  This  reply 
from  London,  which  Belcher  laid  before  the  council  in  No- 
vember, 1754,  advised  that  the  governor  use  his  influence 
in  persuading  the  proprietors  to  bring  their  actions  for 
trespass  before  the  courts  for  adjudication.2  A  council 
committee  considered  the  matter  and  after  six  months  had 
elapsed  reported  to  the  governor.8  It  stated  that  after  con- 
tinued offers  on  the  part  of  the  proprietors  to  the  rioters' 
committee  to  join  in  an  action,  one  Tompkins  was  entered 
as  defendant  in  1752,  the  case  to  be  tried  a  year  later  before 
a  Middlesex  County  jury,  but  delays  had  postponed  the 
trial  of  the  case.  In  the  meantime,  according  to  a  report 
which  came  to  the  council  committee,  it  was  seen  that  the 
spirit  of  rioting  was  disappearing. 

In  Essex  County  at  least  sixty  rioters  were  indicted,  con- 
fessed the  indictments,  submitted  to  the  mercy  of  the  court, 
were  fined  and  ordered  to  good  behavior  for  three  years. 
They  complied  and  paid  the  costs  of  prosecution.  In  Hun- 
terdon County  even  more  auspicious  omens  were  observed. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  151.  *  /did.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  493. 

%Ibid.t  p.  549. 


206  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [206 

In  the  trial  of  an  action  of  trespass  before  the  Supreme 
Court  at  Burlington,  the  plaintiffs  were  able  to  set  forth 
their  case  as  so  just  and  evident,  that  not  only  were  the 
jury  and  bystanders  convinced,  but  even  the  rioters  settled 
upon  the  lands  involved  in  the  case,  and  the  defendant's 
lawyer,  who  advised  his  clients  "  to  contend  no  farther 
against  so  clear  a  title.,,  x  The  light  of  the  proprietary 
point  of  view  dawned  upon  the  wayward  settlers  of  Mid- 
dlesex and  Hunterdon  Counties,  but  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  Essex  County  had  not  yet,  according  to  the  pro- 
prietors, become  "  sensible  of  their  errors." 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  inhabitants  of  Middle- 
sex and  Hunterdon  Counties  were  not  included  in  the  origi- 
nal Elizabethtown  Purchase.  The  determining  factor  in 
their  outbreak  had  been  the  influence  of  the  general  restless 
conditions  about  them,  or,  as  was  so  often  mentioned  in  the 
letters  and  reports  of  that  time,  the  disorders  spread. 
Coupled  with  that  was  doubtless  the  hope  of  substantiating 
their  questionable  claims  against  those  of  the  proprietors 
and  in  so  doing,  freeing  themselves  from  the  obligation  of 
the  quit-rents,  which  they  had  regarded  with  such  hostility. 
But  in  Essex  County,  the  seat  of  the  Elizabethtown  Pur- 
chase, the  outcome  was  different. 

There  the  controversy  came  to  an  end,  but  not  to  a  legal 
settlement.  On  April  13,  1745,  there  was  filed  with  the 
clerk  in  chancery,  Thomas  Bartow,  the  Elizabethtown  Bill 
in  Chancery.2    The  title  to  the  bill  ran  as  follows : 

A  Bill  in  the  Chancery  of  New  Jersey,  at  the  suit  of  John 
Earl  of  Stair  and  others,  Proprietors  of  the  Eastern  Division 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  551. 

"This  Bill  in  Chancery  is  a  rare  document,  as  is  also  the  answer 
thereto.    Copies  are  in  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society  Library. 


207]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  207 

of  New  Jersey;  against  Benjamin  Bond  and  some  other  Per- 
sons of  Elizabethtown,  distinguished  by  the  Name  of  the 
Qinker  Lot  Right  Men.  With  three  large  Maps,  done  from 
Copper-Plates,  to  which  is  added;  The  Publication  of  the 
Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  New  Jersey,  and  Mr.  Nevill's 
speeches  to  the  General  Assembly,  concerning  the  Riots  com- 
mitted in  New  Jersey,  and  the  pretences  of  the  Rioters,  and 
their  Seducers." 

The  reader  was  likewise  advised  that  "  these  Papers  will 
give  a  better  Light  into  the  History  and  Constitution  of 
New  Jersey,  than  anything  hitherto  published,  the  matters 
whereof  have  been  chiefly  collected  from  Records."  The 
document  was  published  by  subscription,  printed  by  James 
Parker.  Parker  and  Benjamin  Franklin  were  to  sell  a  few 
copies,  the  "  Price  bound  and  Maps  coloured,  Three  Pounds ; 
plain  and  stitcht  only,  Fifty  Shillings,  Proclamation 
Money."  The  bill  was  an  exhaustive  defence  of  the  pro- 
prietary claims,  signed  by  James  Alexander  and  Joseph 
Murray,  "  of  Council  for  the  Complainants."  * 

After  the  case  of  the  plaintiffs  had  been  fully  set  forth, 
the  bill  concluded,  praying  that  the  defendants  be  com- 
manded to  appear  on  a  certain  day  in  "  His  Majesty's  Court 
of  Chancery  of  this  Province,  then  and  there  to  answer 
the  Premises."  The  governor  was  asked  to  grant  writs 
of  injunction,  commanding  the  defendants  and  confederates 
to  commit  no  further  "  Waste  or  spoil  upon  the  lands  in 
question,  by  cutting  of  timber  or  otherwise  howsoever, 
until  your  Excellency  shall  have  given  farther  directions 
therein."  2 

The  committee  of  Elizabethtown  engaged  William  Liv- 
ingston and  William  Smith,  as  their  counsel,  to  prepare 
an  answer  to  the  proprietary  document.     This  work,  "  An 

l£ill  in  Chancery,  p.  81.  Vbid.,  p.  81. 


2o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [208 

Answer  to  a  Bill  in  the  Chancery  of  New  Jersey,"  was  not 
completed  until  August,  1751,  and  was  printed  the  follow- 
ing year  by  subscription.  Affixed  to  the  "  Answer  "  are 
the  signatures  of  449  freeholders  and  inhabitants  of  Eliza- 
bethtown.  A  touch  of  sarcasm  is  apparent  in  the  title  to 
the  reply.    It  purports  to  be 

An  Answer  to  a  Bill  in  the  Chancery  of  New  Jersey,  at  the 
suit  of  John  Earl  of  Stair,  and  others,  commonly  called  Pro- 
prietors, of  the  Eastern  Division  of  New  Jersey,  against  Ben- 
jamin Bond,  and  others,  claiming  under  the  original  Propri- 
etors and  Associates  of  Elizabethtown,  to  which  is  added; 
Nothing  either  of  the  publications  of  the  Council  of  Propri- 
etors of  East  New  Jersey,  or,  of  the  Pretences  of  the  Rioters, 
and  their  Seducers;  except  so  far  as  the  persons,  meant  by 
Rioters,  Pretend  Title  against  the  Parties  to  the  above  An- 
swer; but  a  Great  Deal  of  the  Controversy,  though  much  less 
of  the  History  and  Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  than  the  said 
Bill. 

The  Bill  in  Chancery  was  submitted  to  Governor  Morris, 
who  had  established  a  Court  of  Chancery  and  himself  ex- 
ercised the  office  of  chancellor.  Morris's  connections  might 
naturally  have  inclined  him  toward  the  proprietary  cause, 
had  he  passed  a  decision  upon  the  case;  but  his  death  in 
1746,  over  five  years  before  the  answer  was  prepared,  pre- 
vented that  contingency.  On  the  other  hand,  had  the  case 
been  adjudicated  before  Belcher,  his  possible  leaning  toward 
the  defendant's  cause  would  have  been  a  matter  of  suspi- 
cion on  the  part  of  many.  For  unknown  reasons,  it  was 
not  settled  before  Belcher. 

Some  of  the  leading  men  connected  with  the  suit  died.1 
The  case  dragged  along  and  before  a  decision  was  ren- 

1  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  372. 


209]  THE  PROPRIETARY  SYSTEM  209 

dered  the  strenuous  events  beginning  in  the  late  fifties  in- 
terrupted its  further  progress.  The  raising  of  troops  for 
the  French  War  became  the  paramount  question.  Shortly- 
after  came  the  tense  situation  caused  by  the  Stamp  Act, 
from  which  time  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution 
thought  and  energy  were  diverted  into  other  channels  than 
a  suit  in  chancery  over  disputed  land  titles.  During  the 
war  for  independence  there  was  a  suspension  of  legal  busi- 
ness, and  after  the  colonies  had  gained  their  freedom  and 
New  Jersey  had  become  a  state,  the  suit  was  never  again 
reopened.  Hence  this  controversy  which  had  been  a  thorn 
in  the  side  of  the  province  for  almost  a  century,  was  never 
legally  decided. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Boundary  Disputes 

Boundary  lines  were  often  subjects  of  dispute  during- 
colonial  times.  Before  the  wilderness  was  claimed  for 
habitation,  inexact  bounds  were  not  necessarily  inconveni- 
ent, but  with  the  increase  in  population  the  necessity  for 
the  determination  of  accurate  and  recognized  boundaries 
became  imperative.  In  New  Jersey  history,  the  northern 
boundary  line  was  the  cause  of  a  long  dispute  with  New 
York.  This  was  the  most  important  controversy  of  this 
nature,  although  not  the  only  one.  The  ownership  of 
Staten  Island  and  the  jurisdiction  over  the  waters  lying 
between  New  York  and  New  Jersey  were  also  matters  of 
contention.  Of  interest  to  the  two  proprietary  bodies  was 
the  fixation  of  the  line  between  East  and  West  Jersey. 

The  Duke  of  York  granted  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret 

All  that  Tract  of  land  adjacent  to  New  England  and  lying  and 
being  to  the  westward  of  Long  Island  and  Manhitas  Island 
and  bounded  on  the  east  part  by  the  maine  sea  and  part  by 
Hudson  River  and  hath  upon  the  west  Delaware  Bay  or  River 
and  extendeth  southward  to  the  maine  ocean  as  far  as  Cape 
May  at  the  south  of  Delaware  Bay  and  to  the  northward  as 
far  as  ye  northermost  branch  of  the  said  Bay  or  River  of 
Delaware  which  is  in  fourtie  one  degrees  and  fourtie  minutes 
of  lattitude  and  crosseth  over  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  Hud- 
son River  in  fourty  one  degrees  of  lattitude  which  said  tract 
210  [210 


2i  i ]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  2I I 

of  land  is  hereafter  to  be  called  by  the  name  or  names  of 
New  Cesarea  or  New  Jersey.1 

This  was  entirely  definite,  except  for  the  "  Northermost 
Branch  of  the  said  Bay  or  River  of  Delaware  which  is  in 
fourtie  one  degrees  and  fourtie  minutes  of  lattitude."  The 
determination  of  this  spot  caused  a  hundred-year  contest. 

Early  but  fruitless  attempts  had  been  made  to  fix  the 
northern  line.2  The  disputed  section  in  New  Jersey  be- 
longed to  the  proprietors,  who  naturally  were  most  active 
in  procuring  a  settlement.  In  1686  occurred  the  first  un- 
successful attempt  to  settle  the  boundary  question.  Delays 
ensued,  and  it  was  not  until  17 19  that  another  concerted 
effort  was  made  by  the  two  colonies  in  this  matter.  In 
that  year  Governor  Hunter  issued  a  commission  for  deter- 
mining the  boundary.  Each  legislature  passed  an  act  for 
the  purpose  of  appointing  commissioners  to  cooperate  in 
running  the  line.8  An  indenture  was  signed  declaring  the 
Fish-Kill  to  be  the  northernmost  branch  of  the  Delaware, 
but  an  unfortunate  disagreement  between  the  surveyors  as 
to  the  point  on  the  Hudson,  rendered  the  whole  affair 
abortive. 

Although  a  settlement  was  so  nearly  attained,  almost 
thirty  years  elapsed  before  the  controversy  was  again 
actively  revived.  Meanwhile  that  section  of  the  colony  was 
becoming  peopled  with  great  rapidity.  It  was  for  the 
greater  convenience  of  the  growing  population  that  Morris 
County  was  established  in  1740.  This  may  have  served  to 
revive  the  troublesome  question,    for  almost   immediately 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  i,  p.  12. 

1  See  Tanner,  op.  cit.%  p.  641  et  seq.\  Whitehead,  Northern  Boundary 
Line,  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  vol.  viii,  p.  157. 
■Nevill,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  p.  77. 


212  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [212 

the  charge  was  made  that  its  bounds  extended  beyond  the 
confines  of  New  Jersey.1  The  two  counties  in  the  disputed 
section  were  Morris  County,  New  Jersey,  and  Orange 
County,  New  York. 

When  civil  officers  began  to  exercise  authority  in  the 
newly-erected  county,  disorders  inevitably  ensued.  Inhabi- 
tants near  the  supposed  line  denied  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Jersey  officials  over  them,  and  used  violence  upon  persons 
in  that  vicinity  who  declared  their  lands  were  in  New  Jer- 
sey. The  bravado  of  the  Orange  County  men  led  them  into 
such  reckless  conduct  that  frequent  complaints  against  them 
were  received  by  Governor  Morris.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Jerseymen  were  not  entirely  innocent  of  seeking  to  gain 
an  advantage,  forcibly  if  necessary.  Neither  side  was  in- 
clined to  be  bullied,  and  there  resulted  a  condition  of  tur- 
moil and  violence,  well  calculated  to  show  the  necessity  for 
a  speedy  settlement  of  the  boundary  line.  The  council 
unanimously  advised  the  governor  to  urge  the  Morris 
County  magistrates  to  avoid  strife,  preserve  peace,  and  pro- 
tect the  inhabitants  from  insult.2  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  magistrates  were  not  disposed  to  follow  such  excellent 
advice,  but  in  itself  it  was  insufficient  to  correct  the  frontier 
difficulties. 

The  border  encroachments  continued.  In  September, 
1 741,  a  joint  committee  of  both  proprietary  boards  in  the 
province  appealed  to  Governor  Morris  to  use  his  influence 
in  having  the  line  run.3  After  a  thorough  investigation 
the  petitioners  had  become  convinced  that  New  Yorkers 
had  overrun  the  line  of  that  colony  and  were  dispossessing 
many  of  the  tenants  of  the  Jersey  proprietors  from  their 
lands. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  266. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  185.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  138. 


213]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  213 

As  this  petition  did  not  spur  the  governor  to  action,  the 
East  Jersey  proprietors  sent  an  address  to  Morris  in  June 
of  the  next  year.1  It  was  claimed  that  John  Bayard  of 
New  York  had  started  ejectment  proceedings  in  an  Orange 
County  court  against  persons  who  lived  seven  miles  south 
of  where  the  true  line  should  run.2  Morris  was  urged  to 
write  to  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  York  with  a  view 
to  a  settlement  of  the  boundary  question.  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor Clarke  having  been  succeeded  by  George  Clinton,  as 
governor  of  New  York,  Morris  addressed  himself  to  the 
latter.8  To  impress  upon  him  the  seriousness  of  the  situa- 
tion, there  were  sent  to  Clinton  copies  of  the  petitions  that 
had  been  received  by  the  New  Jersey  executive.  His  aid 
in  the  premises  was  asked,  especially  to  restrain  the  people 
in  his  government  from  engaging  in  hostile  demonstrations 
upon  the  New  Jersey  frontier.  The  two  governors  carried 
on  an  active  correspondence  with  one  another,  but  the 
boundary  line  was  not  further  mentioned.  The  New  York 
governor's  declared  reason  for  his  inactivity  was  that 
£3,000  had  formerly  been  expended  in  New  York  for  that 
purpose,  and  no  settlement  reached.4  Clinton  was  particu- 
larly interested  in  French  and  Indian  affairs,  and  then  too 
the  Third  Intercolonial  War  began  at  this  time  to  engage 
the  activities  of  the  colonists. 

Governor  Clinton  recognized  the  necessity  of  running 
the  line,  but  shifted  the  responsibility  of  any  action  upon 
Chief  Justice  James  De  Lancey.6  Robert  Hunter  Morris 
met  De  Lancey,  and  other  New  Yorkers  concerned  in  the 
border  lands  on  October  29,  1743,  but  the  meeting  broke 
up  after  "  much  talk  to  little  purpose."  6     Endeavors  to 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  144.  *  Ibid.,  p.  147. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  162.  KIbid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  152. 

6 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  168.  •  Ibid.,  p.  171. 


2i4  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [214 

rouse  the  officials  or  landowners  of  New  York  to  action 
failed  dismally.  The  East  Jersey  proprietors  were  per- 
suaded that  only  "  by  an  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
this  province  to  be  approved  by  his  Majesty  for  running  the 
same  line  ex  parte  "  would  the  desired  end  be  gained.1  Gov- 
ernor Morris  was  urged  to  recommend  such  an  act  to  the 
legislature  at  its  next  meeting.  Morris's  indisposition,  how- 
ever, prevented  the  delivery  of  the  formal  address  to  both 
houses  at  this  session.  A  bill  to  settle  the  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  line  was  introduced,  but,  as  with  other  meas- 
ures, no  agreement  between  the  council  and  assembly  was 
possible.2  Violent  constitutional  conflicts  marked  the 
course  of  legislation  at  this  time,  and  it  was  almost  certain 
that  any  line  act,  sponsored  by  East  Jersey  proprietors, 
would  not  receive  favorable  action  in  the  assembly. 

In  the  winter  of  1747- 1748  the  assembly  was  at  length 
prevailed  upon  to  pass  the  bill  for  ascertaining  the  partition 
line.  The  council  minutes  show  that  James  Alexander  was 
in  constant  attendance  during  the  legislative  session  of  that 
year  and  presumably  was  one  of  the  most  influential  of 
those  who  prevailed  upon  the  lower  house  to  pass  the.  act.3 
It  may  be  noted  also,  that  this  was  the  eminently  satisfactory 
legislative  session  shortly  after  Belcher's  arrival  at  which 
the  assembly's  pet  bills  were  passed.  This  act  had  a  clause 
suspending  its  operation  until  the  royal  pleasure  was  known.4 
By  it  commissioners  were  appointed  for  running  the  line, 
with  the  consent  of  New  York,  and  according  to  the  act 
of  1718.5 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  218. 
8  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.,  1744. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  119. 

*Allinson,  op.  ciL,  p.  172.     Neither  Nevill  nor  Allinson  give  the  de- 
tails of  this  act. 
h  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  217. 


215]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  215 

There  was  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the  East  Jersey 
proprietors  for  the  success  of  the  partition  act  in  England. 
Governor  Belcher  strongly  urged  the  confirmation  of  the 
bill  as  tending  greatly  to  promote  the  quiet  and  peace  of 
the  royal  subjects,  but  the  attitude  of  New  York  was 
ominous.1  For  the  first  time  in  over  a  decade  that  colony 
had  appointed  an  agent  in  London.  The  supposition  was 
that  this  appointment  was  made  chiefly  with  a  view  to  op- 
posing the  line  act.  On  April  9,  1748,  this  suspicion  seemed 
verified.  A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Gale  in  the  New  York 
assembly  that  as 

an  Act  has  been  lately  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  New  Jersey  for  settling  the  boundaries  between  that 
Province  and  this,  which,  in  its  consequences,  may  greatly  affect 
the  properties  of  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  colony,  and 
tend  to  lessen  and  impair  his  Majesties  Revenue  Arising  by 
Quit  rents,  I  humbly  move  that  Mr.  Speaker  may  be  directed 
to  write  to  Mr.  Charles,  Agent  for  this  colony  in  Great  Brit- 
tain,  to  use  his  endeavors  that  the  said  act  may  not  receive 
royal  assent  until  this  colony  have  an  opportunity  of  making 
their  objections  to,  and  being  heard  against  the  said  act.2 

It  was  accordingly  ordered  that  the  speaker  of  the  assem- 
bly should  notify  Charles  to  use  his  influence  against  the 
bill. 

Steps  were  taken  by  the  New  Jersey  proprietors  to  assure 
the  final  success  of  the  act.  Robert  Hunter  Morris,  Elisha 
Parker  and  James  Alexander  were  a  committee  in  charge 
of  the  boundary  affair.  Proofs  were  sent  to  their  agent  in 
London  which,  it  was  expected,  would  obviate  all  the  ob- 
jections that  the  New  Yorkers  might  bring  forth.8     Alex- 

1  Belcher  Papers,  April  22,  1748. 

*  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  120.  %Ibid.t  p.  126. 


2i6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [2i6 

ander  hoped  that  one  hearing  before  the  lords  of  trade 
would  convince  them  of  the  propriety  of  the  bill.  The 
committee  notified  the  speakers  of  the  New  York  council 
and  assembly  of  the  passage  of  the  act,  delivering  sundry 
papers  to  them.1  Likewise  an  address  was  sent  to  Gov- 
ernor Clinton  notifying  him  that  the  king  would  be  urged 
to  approve  the  boundary  line  act.  He  was  asked  to  com- 
municate to  the  New  Jersey  committee  any  objections  he 
might  have  to  the  measure,  in  order  that  such  objections 
might  be  satisfactorily  answered.2 

The  governor  of  New  York  undertook  to  explain  his 
attitude  in  this  matter  to  the  royal  authorities  in  a  letter 
of  October  7,  1748.3  It  was  his  idea  that  as  the  lands  along 
the  line  were  granted  to  private  persons  for  trivial  quit 
rents,  the  settlement  was  only  a  matter  of  adjustment  be- 
tween the  interested  parties  in  both  provinces.  As  it  did 
not  appear  to  him  "  that  the  interest  of  the  Crown  or  of 
this  Province  in  General  are  any  way  concerned  in  the 
matter,  but  only  the  Pattentees  of  the  lands  along  that 
line,"  the  New  York  executive  declined  to  bother  the  home 
officials  with  the  controversy. 

New  York  freeholders  living  near  the  disputed  region 
opposed  the  New  Jersey  line  act,  as  they  "  found  Sundry 
things  set  forth  therein  for  facts  and  truths  which  they 
conceived  to  be  otherwise."  4  The  bid  for  royal  favor  made 
by  the  New  York  assembly  in  the  resolution  of  April  9, 
1748,  referred  to  above,  was  clever.  To  claim  that  running 
the  partition  line  might  lessen  the  king's  quit  rents  was  not 
a  valid  argument  against  settling  the  boundary  difficulty. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  practically  all  the  lands  along  the  line 

lN.  J.  A.y  vol.  vii,  p.  141. 

2I6id.,  p.  142;  Robert  H.  Morris  Papers ',  vol.  ii,  p.  8. 

zI6id.,  p.  159.  K  R.  H.  Morris  Papers,  vol.  ii,  p.  36. 


217]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  217 

had  been  granted  away  by  the  crown,  and  it  was  imma- 
terial to  the  king  where  the  line  fell.1 

But  whether  just  or  not,  the  opposition  of  New  York 
brought  on  an  expensive  and  leisurely  investigation  in  Eng- 
land. In  both  provinces  the  landholders  wished  the  inves- 
tigation to  be  a  public  charge,  but  it  was  made  so  only  in 
New  York.  The  East  Jersey  proprietors  were  certain  that 
the  assembly  would  not  contribute  to  the  expense  and  did 
not  press  the  matter.2  In  New  York  there  was  opposition 
to  saddling  the  debt  upon  the  public.  The  opposition) 
granted  the  necessity  of  determining  the  line,  but  insisted 
that  those  who  were  to  reap  the  benefits  should  bear  tha 
burdens.8  A  pamphlet  discussion  was  provoked  by  the 
question.  One  gentleman  of  New  York,  signing  himself 
"  Tribunus  Populi,"  asked  if  it  was  "  reasonable  and  just, 
that  those  persons  who  have  obtained  enormous  grants  of 
two  or  three  hundred  thousand  acres  of  land  upon  that  line, 
at  so  small  a  Quit-Rent  as  a  Beaver  skin  etc,  should  expect 
the  public  to  pay  for  running  a  line  to  ascertain  their 
bounds?  "  *  Despite  the  strong  opposition  to  such  a  course, 
the  New  York  assembly  voted  in  1750  that  the  Jersey  line 
act  should  be  opposed  at  public  expense.  This  result  13 
said  to  have  been  due  chiefly  to  the  De  Lancey  influence.8 

In  due  season  the  New  Jersey  bill  reached  England,  and 
agent  Paris  received  also  the  papers  and  data  with  which 
to  defend  the  measure.  On  February  14,  1749,  he  sub- 
mitted a  petition  to  the  lords  of  trade  in  defense  of  the  bill.8 
The  history  of  the  case  was  recited,  including  the  last  in- 
effectual attempt  to  come  to  an  amicable  agreement  with 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  153.  *Ibid.,  p.  262.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  163. 

*R.  H.  Morris  Papers,  vol.  ii,  p.  22. 

5  Whitehead,  Northern  Boundary,  p.  167. 

•  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  229. 


2i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [218 

New  York.  In  conclusion  the  lords  were  asked  to  appoint 
a  day  for  a  hearing,  that  they  might  thereafter  recommend 
the  act  to  the  king.  There  followed  many  delays,  and 
month  after  month  Paris  was  forced  to  notify  his  Ameri- 
can clients  that  the  board  had  not  yet  considered  the  bill.1 
Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  lords  were  occupied  with  other 
questions,  the  delays  were  in  no  small  part  occasioned  by  the 
conduct  of  Charles,  the  New  York  agent.  He  ever  pressed 
for  a  postponement  of  the  case  on  the  ground  that  instruc- 
tions had  not  been  sent  to  him  by  the  New  York  assembly. 
On  July  19,  1749  the  privilege  of  one  more  postponement 
was  granted  for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Charles.2  The  delay 
was  to  last  only  long  enough  for  a  letter  to  reach  America 
and  have  an  answer  returned.  Intercourse  between  the 
mother  country  and  the  colonies  was  slow  at  that  time,  but 
not  to  such  an  extreme  as  the  delay  that  actually  ensued. 
Many  letters  might  have  been  exchanged  between  Charles 
and  the  New  York  assembly  before  the  question  was  again 
revived.  The  next  hearing  was  not  held  until  June  7,  1753. 
It  appears  that  agent  Paris  had  slight  hope  for  the  suc- 
cess of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  in  this  affair.  The 
whole  thing  was  distasteful  to  him,  yet  he  claimed  to  have 
labored  as  faithfully  as  if  he  "  had  liked  the  Cause."  8  To 
James  Alexander  he  wrote,  "  but  I  assure  you,  was  this  a 
matter  recommended  to  me  by  A  Person  whom  I  had  less 
regard  for,  no  Pecuniary  Reward  whatsoever  should  drag 
me  to  it."  The  cause  of  this  "  heavy  heart "  on  Parish 
part  was  that  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  were  urging  him 
to  state  "  the  case  a  little  too  tenderly  and  favourably  for 
themselves."  He  feared  that  he  would  suffer  ill-conse- 
quences from  such  a  course  of  procedure.     It  was  with  evi- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  234,  240,  297. 

'/did.,  p.  300.  */6id.,  p.  300. 


2IQ]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  219 

dent  relief  that  Paris  learned  of  the  intended  visit  of  Chief 
Justice  Morris  to  England.  "  I  shall  every  day  look  for  Mr 
Ch:  Justices  arrival",  he  wrote  on  November  10,  1749.* 
Morris  had  sailed  from  Newcastle,  Delaware,  about  twelve 
days  before  that  date. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  proprietary  agent's  personal 
feelings,  he  never  wavered  in  the  task  before  him.  After 
the  long  period  of  apathy,  Paris  could  finally  report,  on 
March  7,  1753,  that  a  hearing  of  the  case  had  been  or- 
dered "  on  the  first  committee  after  Easter."  2  The  request 
that  a  day  be  set  for  the  consideration  of  the  boundary  act 
had  been  made  by  Paris  on  December  2,  1752.8 

After  testimony  had  been  taken  on  the  boundary  act,  the 
opinion  pronounced  by  the  lords  of  trade  was  unfavorable 
to  New  Jersey.4  The  lords  declared  that  if  the  boundary 
grants  were  doubtful  recourse  might  be  taken  to  one  of 
two  methods  of  settlement.  Either  all  parties  concerned 
might  concur,  or  the  regular  channels  of  judicial  procedure 
might  be  utilized.  The  latter  method  necessitated  a  com- 
mission from  the  crown  under  the  great  seal.  The  act  under 
consideration  was  pronounced  unwarrantable  and  ineffect- 
ual because  it  had  not  the  concurrence  of  the  other  parties 
concerned.  As  former  proceedings  in  this  difficulty  between 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  were  not  warranted  on  the  part 
of  the  crown,  they  were  not  binding  upon  the  crown.  Any 
determination  of  the  boundary  prejudicial  to  New  York, 
according  to  the  report,  would  affect  the  king's  interest,  in 
that  he  might  be  deprived  of  escheats  and  quit  rents.  How- 
ever meagre  such  rents  might  be,  the  essence  of  the  ques- 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  360. 

*R.  H.  Morris  Papers,  vol.  ii,  p.  62. 

1  Collections  of  N.  J.  Hist.  Society,  vol.  v,  p.  298. 

'M  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  128. 


220  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [220 

tion  was  not  altered.  From  this  reasoning  the  conclusion 
was  logically  reached  that  Governor  Hunter  ought  not  to 
have  issued  his  commission  for  running  the  line.  It  was 
declared  impossible  to  recommend  this  line  act  for  ap- 
proval, and  the  agents  of  the  two  provinces  were  ordered 
to  attend  the  board  meeting  on  July  4th.  Later  in  the  same 
month  the  lords  of  trade  submitted  their  opinion  to  the  king 
in  a  representation  which  declared  the  New  Jersey  line  act 
not  fit  to  receive  the  royal  approbation.1 

The  industrious  Paris  made  immediate  preparations  to 
oppose  favorable  action  on  the  lords  of  trade's  representa- 
tion, but  was  handicapped  because  of  a  lack  of  instructions 
and  funds.2  A  committee  of  the  privy  council,  to  which 
the  king  had  referred  the  report,  had  the  matter  under  ad- 
visement. Paris  decided  to  adopt  the  former  tactics  of  the 
New  York  agent  and  spar  for  a  delay  in  the  proceedings. 
On  August  7,  1753,  the  case  was  held  up  until  a  petition 
could  be  prepared  for  the  Jersey  proprietors.  The  East  Jer- 
sey agent  found  the  proprietors  of  the  western  division  dis- 
inclined to  risk  the  expense  of  opposing  the  opinion  of  the 
lords  of  trade,  but  Robert  Hunter  Morris  believed  the  West 
Jersey  Society  would  take  a  "  proper  part  in  the  affair."  * 
The  petition,  however,  was  submitted  by  the  East  Jersey 
proprietors  alone.  After  an  elaborate  review  of  the  case, 
the  petitioners  asked  that  they  might  be  heard  against  the 
report  of  July  18th.  All  efforts  were  of  no  avail,  and  the 
act  for  determining  the  boundary  line  was  disallowed. 
Over  five  years  had  elapsed  since  the  passage  of  the  bill  in 
the  New  Jersey  legislature! 

The  East  Jersey  proprietors  fell  into  error  because  of 


1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  144. 

*Ibid.y  p.  152.  *Ibid.,  p.  158. 


221  j  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  22 1 

their  insistence  that  nothing  should  be  done  to  invalidate 
what  had  been  accomplished  in  17 19.  It  indicates  the  fear 
on  their  part  that  they  could  not  hope  for  a  more  favorable 
decision  than  that  would  have  been  had  it  been  consum- 
mated, and  the  intimation  that  nothing  less  favorable  to 
them  should  be  considered.  The  royal  authorities,  however, 
by  assenting  to  the  boundary  line  acts  of  both  provinces  in 
1719,  did  warrant  the  proceedings  at  that  time.  But  those 
proceedings  resulted  in  no  definite  or  final  agreement  and 
should  not  have  been  made  almost  the  sine  qua  non  in  the 
case  of  the  Jersey  proprietors  over  thirty  years  later.  On 
the  other  hand  it  was  not  strict  justice  to  consider  the  royal 
quit  rents  in  this  boundary  dispute.  The  true  determination 
could  be  made  only  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
land  grants  and  not  by  any  gerrymandering  of  the  line  to 
suit  the  royal  revenue.  An  impartial  consideration  of  every 
circumstance  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  constant  rule 
of  any  of  the  parties  concerned,  but  the  attitude  of  New 
Jersey  is  less  reprehensible  than  that  of  New  York  or  the 
crown. 

At  this  time,  the  summer  of  1753,  the  upper  parts  of 
Morris  County  were  erected  into  Sussex  County.1  New 
courts,  new  officials,  and  new  tax-gatherers  were  estab- 
lished along  this  border  country,  thus  increasing  the  possi- 
bility of  disorders.  On  December  20,  1753,  Governor  Bel- 
cher, in  view  of  the  riots  and  outrages  that  had  taken  place, 
besought  the  lords  of  trade  to  consider  ways  and  means  to 
bring  about  a  settlement  of  the  boundary,  as  there  was  little 
prospect  of  an  amicable  adjustment  between  the  two  pro- 
vinces.2 In  July,  1753,  Richard  Gardiner,  an  East  Jersey 
surveyor,  had  been  threatened  "  with  horrid  oaths  and  a 

1  Allinson,  op.  cii.,  p.  194. 

•iv~.  J.  A.t  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  100. 


222  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [222 

pistol  ",  wounded  and  robbed.1  New  Jersey  officials  were 
arrested  and  hauled  before  New  York  justices  for  per- 
forming their  duties  in  the  disputed  territory.  It  was  said 
that  to  "  enumerate  all  the  cruelties  and  abuses  committed 
by  the  people  of  New  York  upon  people  of  New  Jersey  " 
would  have  filled  a  large  volume! 

But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Jerseymen  along  the 
border  were  entirely  passive.  The  records  of  each  colony 
testify  to  the  violence  of  the  other  party.  On  a  Sunday  in 
February,  1754,  New  Yorkers  claimed  that  "about  fifty 
Jersey  People  had  attacked  and  taken  Justice  Swartwout 
and  Justice  Westbrook,  and  had  greatly  beat  and  abused 
Justice  Swartwout  and  had  carried  those  two  Justices  down 
below  Pechaqualong  before  Justice  Van  Camp."  2  Not  only 
were  Orange  County  officials  thus  summarily  dealt  with, 
but  it  is  likewise  alleged  that  inhabitants  of  that  county 
deserted  their  homes  or  else  converted  them  into  veritable 
forts. 

Little  time  elapsed  after  the  notice  of  the  disallowance 
of  the  act  of  1748  before  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  made 
the  next  move.  They  were  rather  stirred  to  activity  by 
discrediting  reports  published  by  the  New  York  legislature. 
A  most  exhaustive  and  detailed  statement  of  the  dispute 
was  presented  to  Belcher  in  a  memorial  of  the  council  of 
the  East  Jersey  proprietors,  dated  November  20,  1753.3 
The  following  March  it  was  sent  to  the  lords  of  trade  by 
Robert  Hunter  Morris.  The  distinguishing  feature  of  this 
document  was  its  advocacy  of  a  temporary  line  of  jurisdic- 
tion. It  was  contended  that  there  were  no  sufficient  reasons 
for  not  regarding  the  observations  of  1719  at  least  as  fixing 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  226  et  seq.;  vol.  xvi,  pp.  435  et  seg. 
a Ibid.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  437;  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  20. 
*  Ibid,,  pp.  202-286. 


223]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  223 

a  temporary  line.  If  New  York  regarded  this  as  an  en- 
croachment, running  the  true  line  would  be  the  remedy,  or 
New  York  should  show  better  reasons  for  any  other  tem- 
porary line.  The  governor  was  urged  to  assert  the  juris- 
diction of  the  province  up  to  the  line  designated  in  171 9. 
To  further  evince  their  earnestness  in  the  matter,  the  East 
Jersey  council  of  proprietors  entered  into  a  bond  of  £2,000 
to  pay  half  the  charge  for  executing  a  royal  commission 
to  settle  the  bounds  between  New  York  and  New  Jersey.1 

The  lords  of  trade  concurred  in  the  belief  that  a  tem- 
porary boundary  should  be  fixed,  and  promised  shortly  to 
so  recommend  to  the  king.  In  the  meantime  Governor 
Belcher  and  Lieutenant  Governor  De  Lancey  were  both  to 
take  all  legal  and  proper  measures  to  preserve  the  peace  in 
the  disrupted  region.*  New  York,  however,  showed  no 
disposition  to  agree  even  to  a  temporary  line  of  jurisdic- 
tion.8 Belcher's  repeated  letters  to  De  Lancey  urging  that 
such  action  be  taken  were  ignored.  There  was  no  respite  of 
violence  along  the  frontier  and  the  governor  of  New  Jer- 
sey feared  much  bloodshed  and  many  murders,  if  De  Lancey 
did  not  cooperate  with  him  to  restore  and  preserve  peace.* 
By  November,  1754,  Governor  Belcher  wrote  to  the  lords 
of  trade  that  matters  "  seem  to  be  come  to  a  Crisis ;  and  I 
am  in  much  pain,  least  there  should  be  bloodshed,  among 
the  Borders,  before  King's  Orders  can  arrive."  B 

The  New  Yorkers  at  length  found  it  imperative  to  have 
a  semblance  of  order  maintained  along  the  border.  De 
Lancey  wrote  to  the  lords  of  trade,  on  December  15,  1754, 
of  the  necessity  of  a  speedy  settlement  of  a  temporary  line.* 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  200.  *  Ibid.,  p.  206  et  seq. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  27.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  30. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  72.  *Ibid.,  p.  74. 


224  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [224 

He  was  advised  by  the  New  York  assembly  to  exercise 
jurisdiction  to  the  line  of  1686.  This  line  was,  of  course, 
less  favorable  to  New  Jersey  than  the  one  of  1719,  and  in 
addition,  as  claimed  by  New  York  at  this  time,  was  some 
distance  south  of  the  actual  observations  of  16861  The 
failure  to  agree  upon  even  a  temporary  boundary  precluded 
a  speedy  termination  of  the  dispute.  James  Alexander 
felt  that  the  New  Yorkers  were  trying  to  wear  the  East 
Jersey  proprietors  out,  but  believed  that  none  of  the  pro- 
prietors would  grow  weak  in  the  contest.  He  evidently 
thought  the  dispute  would  be  handed  down  from  genera- 
tion to  generation.  Intimating  that  proprietary  affairs 
must  soon  devolve  upon  others,  because  he  was  becoming 
old,  the  veteran  Alexander  wrote  to  Paris,  in  January, 
1755,  that  he  also  "must  be  well  Advanced  in  Years."* 
The  agent  was  advised  to  fee  some  dependable  gentleman, 
who  could  assist  Paris  in  case  he  should  become  sick  or  dis- 
abled, for  the  differences  with  New  York  would  continue  to 
need  an  able  manager. 

On  June  12,  1755,  the  lords  of  trade  reported  against 
an  act  of  the  New  York  legislature  "  for  submitting  the 
controversy,  between  the  Colonies  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  relating  to  the  partition  between  the  said  Colonies 
to  the  final  determination  of  His  Majesty."  3  To  allow  the 
king  to  decide  the  dispute  without  either  party  having  the 
prospect  of  an  appeal  was  pronounced  unusual.  To  pre- 
viously ascertain  the  limits  of  the  disputed  property,  as 
this  act  did,  was  declared  improper.  To  propose  .a  method 
of  decision  to  which  the  New  Jersey  proprietors  had  not 
consented  was  regarded  as  ineffectual.  The  disallowance 
of  the  bill  was  recommended. 

lSee  Map,  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  vol.  viii,  p.  157. 

*iV.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  90.  8 Ibid.,  p.  108. 


225]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  22$ 

At  the  same  time,  the  proper  method  of  procedure  in 
this  boundary  dispute  was  declared  to  be  by  a  commission, 
from  whose  decision  either  party  could  appeal  to  the  king 
in  privy  council.  As  this  was  the  plan  which  the  New 
Jersey  interests  had  continually  favored,  it  was  proposed 
that  an  additional  instruction  be  sent  to  the  governor  of 
New  York,  now  Sir  Charles  Hardy,  directing  him  to 
recommend  to  the  assembly  of  that  province  the  payment  of 
half  of  the  expense  of  executing  the  suggested  commission. 
The  instruction  was  issued,  and  Hardy  recommended  to  his 
assembly  a  dutiful  compliance  with  what  the  king  had  or- 
dered.1 Belcher,  optimistic  as  usual  at  the  first  appearance 
of  light,  wrote  to  the  lords  of  trade  of  the  importance  of 
settling  disputes  between  the  colonies  "  in  this  time  of  Gen- 
eral Danger  when  their  united  strength  is  so  necessary.,,  2 
But  had  Belcher  lived  a  decade  longer  than  he  did,  he  would 
not  even  then  have  had  the  satisfaction  of  witnessing  the 
final  adjustment  of  this  persistent  dispute. 

In  colonial  history  it  was  frequently  the  case  that  the 
king  proposed,  but  the  assembly  disposed.  Governor  Hardy 
urged  and  argued  the  matter  with  the  New  York  assembly, 
but  nothing  was  done.8  That  body  pleaded  the  heavy  ex- 
pense to  which  the  province  would  be  put  as  the  reason  for 
this  negligence.  The  New  York  executive  suggested  the 
propriety  of  having  a  commission  in  England  determine 
the  case,  but  the  lords  of  trade  rejected  this  as  unprece- 
dented and  not  less  expensive  than  the  desired  scheme.* 
He  was  ordered  to  again  urge  the  assembly  to  make  proper 
provision  for  the  expense  of  the  commission.  The  assem- 
bly however  showed  no  disposition  to  obey  the  royal  in- 
struction, and  evidently  had  no  intention  of  so  doing. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  183.  *  Ibid.,  p.  187. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  207.  *  Ibid.,  p.  213. 


226  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [226 

On  September  1,  1756,  Belcher  again  entreated  the  Lon- 
don officials  to  interpose  in  the  dispute,  that  more  unfor- 
tunate consequences  might  be  prevented.1  The  East  Jer- 
sey proprietors  again  petitioned  the  king.2  They  definitely 
asked  that  a  royal  order  be  issued  declaring  the  line  of  17 19 
the  line  of  jurisdiction  until  the  true  line  should  "  be  finally 
settled,  run  and  marked  under  a  commission  from  your 
Majesty  to  be  issued  and  carried  into  Execution  at  the  Joint 
and  Equal  Expense  of  your  Petitioners  and  the  said  pro- 
vince of  New  York." 

It  seemed  that  this  definite  and  just  proposal  must  receive 
due  consideration.  The  petition  was  referred  to  the  lords 
of  trade,  and  December  21,  1756,  was  the  day  appointed  for 
a  hearing.3  The  usual  delays  followed.  At  length,  on 
January  27,  1757,  the  lords  of  trade  reported  in  favor  of  the 
temporary  line,  as  indicated  in  the  East  Jersey  petition. 
Agent  Charles  of  New  York  had  repeatedly  succeeded  in 
obtaining  postponements,  but  the  lords  finally  saw  the  neces- 
sity of  restoring  peace  between  the  provinces.4  New  York 
was  allowed  six  months  in  which  to  provide  for  the  ex- 
penses of  the  final  settlement,  before  the  temporary  arrange- 
ment should  take  effect.  The  report  of  the  lords  of  trade 
was  subsequently  approved  by  a  committee  of  the  privy 
council.5 

Six  months  were  allowed ;  years  were  taken.  With  char- 
acteristic neglect  the  matter  was  not  pushed  to  completion 
and  border  strife  again  began.  The  inhabitants  of  northern 
New  Jersey  were  particularly  restive.  Philip  Swartwout 
certified  to  the  council  of  New  York  that  "  one  Petrus 
Smoke,  who  called  himself  Sheriff  of  Sussex  County  in  the 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  224.  */bid.,  p.  225. 

*R.  H.  Morris  Papers,  vol.  ii,  p.  79  et  seq. 

'N.  J,  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  243.  bIbid.,  p.  256. 


227]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  227 

Province  of  New  Jersey,  with  eleven  other  persons  pre- 
tending to  be  inhabitants  of  New  Jersey,  but  in  fact  being 
all  or  most  of  them  possessors  of  Lands  within  the  ancient 
and  long  exercised  jurisdiction  of  this  Province,"  that  is 
New  York,  forcibly  ousted  him  and  his  family  from  their 
possessions.1  The  Orange  County  sheriff,  obeying  an  order 
of  the  New  York  council,  reinstated  Swart wout  in  his 
possessions.2  But  this  did  not  end  that  gentleman's  troubles 
with  the  unneighborly  Jerseymen.  In  the  winter  of  1761, 
"  dreading  the  miseries  to  which  an  imprisonment  in  this 
rigorous  season  of  the  year  would  naturally  expose  him," 
Swartwout  signed  a  £1,600  bond  to  appear  at  the  Sussex 
County  court  on  the  third  Tuesday  in  February.8  President 
Colden  of  New  York  urged  Governor  Boone  to  take  meas- 
ures for  Swartwout's  relief  and  prevent  further  encroach- 
ments upon  the  New  York  frontier.4 

An  interval  of  quiet  ensued,  until  finally,  on  December 
11,  1762,  the  New  York  legislature  passed  an  act  to  settle 
the  line.5  General  Monckton,  appointed  governor  of  New 
York  the  preceding  year,  sent  a  copy  of  the  act  to  Governor 
Franklin,  who  laid  it  before  the  New  Jersey  legislature  on 
May  28,  1763.*  The  measure  passed  in  New  York  was  en- 
titled, 

An  Act  for  submitting  the  property  of  the  lands  which  are 
held  or  claimed  by  grants  under  the  Great  Seal  of  this  Colony 
and  are  affected  by  the  Controversy  about  the  boundary  or 
Partition  line  between  this  Colony  and  the  Colony  of  New 
Jersey  to  such  a  method  of  decision  as  his  most  Gracious 


1N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  178. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  182 

•  Ibid.,  p.  250. 

'/bid.,  p.  253 

*N.  Y.  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  iv,  p.  640. 

1 Assembly  Journal,  May  28,  1763. 

228  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [228 

Majesty  shall  think  proper  by  his  Royal  Commission  or  other- 
wise to  appoint  and  for  defraying  the  expense  to  accrue  on 
the  part  of  this  colony  on  the  final  settlement  of  the  said  Line. 

John  Cruger,  Henry  Holland,  Frederick  Philipse,  John 
Morin  Scott,  William  Bayard  and  Benjamin  Kissam  were 
appointed  agents  to  manage  the  controversy.  The  act  was 
to  be  void  if  New  Jersey  did  not  pass  a  bill  for  the  same 
purpose  within  a  year. 

At  no  previous  time  had  all  parties  concerned  been  so 
unanimously  agreed  upon  the  necessity  of  a  settlement  of 
the  line  of  jurisdiction  between  the  two  provinces.  In  the 
New  Jersey  legislature  a  similar  bill  was  promptly  intro- 
duced, passed  both  houses  and  received  the  governor's  ap- 
proval on  June  3d.1  Five  agents  were  appointed  by  the  act 
to  manage  the  controversy.  By  an  act  passed  at  the  same 
session,  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  bound  themselves  to  in- 
demnify the  province  for  any  funds  drawn  out  of  the 
treasury  for  the  purposes  of  the  boundary  settlement.2 

Of  the  five  agents  nominated  to  manage  the  New  Jersey 
interests  in  the  controversy,  one  was  opposed  by  the  lords 
of  trade  and  a  second  died  shortly  after  the  enactment  of 
the  law.  The  other  three  were  John  Stevens,  James  Parker 
and  Henry  Cuyler,  naturally  all  large  East  Jersey  land- 
holders. Inasmuch  as  the  line  act  of  1763  was  disallowed 
because  of  the  one  objectionable  agent,  only  the  title  is 
given  in  Allinson's  collection  of  laws,  and  the  names  of  the 
undesirable  and  of  the  deceased  nominee  are  not  known. 

On  February  21,  1764,  Governor  Franklin  advised  the 
asembly  to  pass  another  act  for  settling  the  line,  in  every 
respect  like  the  former  one,  "  except  that  instead  of  the  two 
gentlemen  first  named  therein/'  the  names  of  William  Don- 

1  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  254.  *  Ibid. 


229]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  229 

aldson  and  Walter  Rutherford  should  be  inserted.1  This 
was  accordingly  done  and  two  days  later  the  act  for  sub- 
mitting the  property  of  lands  in  the  colony,  "  to  such  a 
method  of  decision  as  His  most  gracious  Majesty  shall 
think  proper  by  his  Royal  Commission  or  otherwise  to  ap- 
point," was  passed.2  Another  bill  was  also  enacted  for 
subjecting  the  estates  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  to  the 
exemption  of  the  province  from  any  expense.3  Three  more 
years  elapsed  before  the  boundary  commission  was  issued 
under  the  privy  seal. 

The  delay  may  have  been  caused  by  the  selection  of  the 
commissioners.  In  August,  1764,  Henry  Wilmot,  the  New 
Jersey  agent,  submitted  a  list  of  five  commissioners  for  run- 
ning the  line.  They  were  Governor  Franklin,  Andrew 
Oliver,  Peter  Randolph,  Peyton  Randolph,  and  Richard 
Corbin.4  These  men  were  evidently  selected  on  the  part 
of  New  Jersey,  with  the  idea  that  New  York  would  submit 
a  similar  list.  In  1766  the  list  of  commissioners  to  adjudi- 
cate the  boundary  dispute  was  announced,  but  met  with 
some  objections  on  the  part  of  Wilmot.  Petitioning  the 
king  for  an  alteration  of  the  personnel  of  the  commission, 
he  asked  that  Charles  Stewart  be  appointed  instead  of  the 
late  John  Temple,  and  that  Richard  Bulkley,  Charles  Morris, 
Joseph  Guerrish  and  Joseph  Gorham  be  struck  from  the 
list.8  The  rejection  of  the  four  last  named  gentleman  was 
asked  because  they  were  Nova  Scotia  officials,  and  too  far 
removed  from  the  scene  of  action.  Wilmot  mentioned  that 
the  appointment  of  fewer  commissioners  would  have  been 
more  agreeable  to  both  provinces.  According  to  the  list 
as  finally  issued,  Morris  was  the  only  Nova  Scotia  officer 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  21,  1764- 

*Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  263.  3 Ibid.,  p.  265. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  447.  hIbid.,  p.  589. 


230  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [230 

included,  but  the  names  of  both  Temple  and  Stewart  ap- 
pear. 

The  draft  of  the  commission  to  settle  the  boundary  dis- 
pute between  New  York  and  New  Jersey  was  approved, 
June  26,  1767.1  Thirteen  commissioners  were  appointed, 
five  of  whom  constituted  a  quorum.  If  at  the  first  or  sec- 
ond meeting  agents  of  the  two  provinces  had  not  su,b- 
mitted  to  the  adjudicators  a  full  statement  of  the  case,  the 
commissioners  might  proceed  ex  parte  in  the  execution  of 
the  commission.  Full  powers  were  granted  to  adjudicate 
the  case.  Not  sooner  than  two  months,  nor  later  than  three 
months,  after  the  decision  was  rendered,  the  commissioners 
were  to  meet  in  order  that  either  party,  if  aggrieved,  might 
enter  an  appeal  to  the  king  in  privy  council. 

The  thrteen  commissoners  were:2  Charles  Stewart,  John 
Temple,  and  Peter  Randolph,  surveyors  general  of  the 
customs  for  the  district  of  Quebec,  and  of  the  northern  and 
southern  districts  of  America,  respectively;  Andrew  Elliot, 
receiver  general  of  quit  rents  in  New  York;  Chambers 
Russell,  judge  of  the  Court  of  Vice  Admiralty  in  Massa- 
chusetts; William  Allen,  chief  justice  of  Pennsylvania; 
Samuel  Holland  and  William  De  Brahm,  surveyors  gen- 
eral of  lands  for  the  northern  and  southern  districts  of 
America;  Andrew  Oliver,  secretary  of  Massachusetts; 
Charles  Morris,  surveyor  of  lands  of  Nova  Scotia;  Peyton 
Randolph,  attorney  general  of  Virginia;  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, of  Pennsylvania,  and  Jared  Ingersoll,  of  Connecticut. 

Two  years  passed  before  the  first  meeting  of  the  com- 
missioners, held  in  New  York  in  July  18,  I76g.*  Six  of 
the  thirteen  were  in  attendance,   Stewart,  Morris,  Elliot, 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  630.  tIbid.,  p.  624. 

'Whitehead,  Northern  Boundary,  p.  174. 


231]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  231 

Holland,  Oliver  and  Ingersoll.  John  Jay  was  appointed 
secretary.  For  New  York,  Scott,  Bayard  and  Cruger  were 
the  most  active  agents;  for  New  Jersey,  Parker,  Stevens 
and  Rutherford. 

It  is  not  within  the  province  of  this  study  to  follow  the 
proceedings  of  the  commissioners.1  The  decision,  ren- 
dered on  October  7,  1769,  and  the  subsequent  developments 
in  the  case  will  be  noted.  The  point  on  the  Delaware  de- 
termined upon  was  at  the  junction  of  the  Mackhackimack 
and  Delaware  Rivers.2  That  station,  in  latitude  41  degrees, 
21  minutes  and  37  seconds  was  believed  to  have  been  in- 
tended in  the  deed  from  the  Duke  of  York  as  at  the  north- 
ernmost branch  of  the  Delaware.  The  point  on  the  Hud- 
son should  be  fixed  at  41  degrees.  The  straight  line  drawn 
between  these  two  points  was  declared  to  be  the  true  bound- 
ary. Samuel  Holland  and  Charles  Morris  did  not  concur 
with  the  other  commissioners  as  to  the  station  at  the  Hud- 
son River. 

The  decree  was  satisfactory  to  neither  province.  New 
York  declared  that  both  points  were  too  far  north;  New 
Jersey  insisted  that  the  station  on  the  Delaware  was  too  far 
south.  By  this  decree,  observed  a  New  York  newspaper 
account,  "  many  Hundred  Thousand  Acres  of  Land,  and 
a  vast  number  of  antient  possessions  held  by  patents  under 
this  colony,  are  totally  ceded  to  New  Jersey  " ;  and  again, 
"  Tho'  by  this  decree  the  court  house  and  Church  in  Orange 
Town  is  left  a  few  Rods  to  the  Northward  of  the  line  de- 
creed; yet  upwards  of  150  families  settled  in  that  antient 
county  town,  will,  if  the  Decree  be  confirmed,  be  dismem- 
bered from  this  colony,  and  exposed  to  utter  Ruin."  8  In 
their  report  to  the  governor,  the  New  Jersey  agents,  on  the 

1  Minutes  of  the  Boundary  Commission,  in  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Library. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  15.  s Ibid.,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  518. 


232  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [232 

other  hand,  declared  that  the  line,  as  decided  would  deprive 
their  colony  of  at  least  150,000  acres  of  land.1 

The  New  York  agents  immediately  appealed  from  the 
decree.  The  appeal  was  refused,  as  it  could  not  be  received 
until  two  months  after  the  decision  had  been  rendered.  The 
commissioners  thereupon  adjourned  to  meet  at  Hartford, 
Connecticut,  on  December  8th,  for  the  purpose  of  hearing 
the  appeal  of  either  party.2  Bayard,  one  of  the  New  York 
agents,  went  to  England  presumably  to  exert  his  influence 
in  favor  of  that  province.3  The  East  Jersey  proprietors 
sought  to  obtain  the  aid  of  the  province  in  the  further  nego- 
tiation of  the  boundary  dispute.  Governor  Franklin  was 
advised  by  his  council  to  recommend  to  the  assembly  that 
the  New  Jersey  managers  of  the  dispute  should  receive 
provincial  assistance  in  any  possible  litigation  before  the 
crown.4  In  addition  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  petitioned 
the  legislature  to  grant  a  sum  of  money  to  enable  them  "  to 
appeal  to  the  king  in  council  and  support  the  just  claim  of 
this  province  against  the  extravagant  claim  of  New  York."  5 
Although  the  immediate  controversy  was  between  indi- 
viduals, Franklin  told  the  assembly  it  affected  the  interests 
of  the  two  provinces,  and  New  Jersey,  like  New  York, 
should  aid  in  defending  the  claims.6 

A  conference  was  held  between  committees  of  the  coun- 
cil and  assembly,  the  initiative  having  been  taken  by  the 
lower  house.7  It  was  resolved  to  introduce  a  bill  empower- 
ing the  treasurers  to  take  a  bond,  from  the  agents  appointed 
to  manage  the  controversy,  for  funds  drawn  pursuant  to  the 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  14.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  519. 

s  Whitehead,  Northern  Boundary,  p.  183. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  21. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1769.  *Ibid.t  Nov.  18,  1769. 

7 A.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  86. 


233]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  233 

line  act,  but  that  the  treasurers  should  be  indemnified  by 
the  agents.  The  committee  of  correspondence  was  directed 
to  order  the  London  agent  to  support  the  claim  of  the  pro- 
vince by  a  memorial  to  the  king.1  An  act  to  indemnify  the 
treasurers  for  advancing  not  over  £3,000,  received  the  gov- 
ernor's assent  on  December  6,  1769.2  This  was  of  course 
simply  a  loan  by  the  province  to  the  proprietors. 

On  December  8,  1769,  the  day  set  for  the  appeal,  Elliot 
and  Morris  were  the  only  two  commissioners  at  the  Hart- 
ford meeting.  The  following  day  also  there  was  no  quorum, 
and  as  the  New  York  commissioners  would  not  agree  to  act 
without  a  quorum,  adjournment  was  taken  to  July  4,  1770. 
Meanwhile  application  was  made  to  the  royal  authorities  for 
further  instructions.  The  king  ordered  that  any  action 
taken  by  the  commissioners,  on  July  4,  1770,  should  be 
valid  regardless  of  a  quorum.  One  lone  commissioner,  An- 
drew Elliot,  appeared  in  New  York  on  the  day  set,  and 
adjourned  "  the  meeting "  to  the  "  first  Tuesday  in  May 
next."  8 

The  agents  of  both  provinces,  however,  decided  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  commission  and  no  further  meetings 
were  held.  Arrangements  were  made  for  surveying  the 
line.4  James  Parker,  John  Stevens,  and  Walter  Ruther- 
ford for  New  Jersey,  and  John  De  Noyelles  and  William 
Wickham  for  New  York  were  to  supervise  the  necessary 
surveys.  The  governors  of  both  provinces  issued  procla- 
mations requiring  the  inhabitants  along  the  border  to  aid 
the  agents  and  surveyors,  threatening  with  punishment  any 
who  hindered  the  work.5 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  I,  1769. 

'Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  335. 

8  Minutes  of  the  Commission,  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  587. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  194.  h  Ibid.,  pp.  178,  194. 


234  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [234 

On  October  18,  1770,  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  peti- 
tioned the  assembly  for  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  confirming 
the  terms  of  agreement  made  between  the  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  agents  for  running  the  line.1  The  permission 
having  been  granted,  an  act  establishing  the  boundary  and 
confirming  the  titles  and  possession  of  the  lands  adjacent 
to  the  line  was  passed,  and  received  the  governor's  assent 
on  October  27,  1770.2 

A  proviso  was  in  the  bill  that  New  York  should  pass  a 
similar  act.  The  bill  which  the  legislature  of  that  province 
passed  on  February  16,  1771  did  not  entirely  correspond 
to  the  New  Jersey  measure.  Consequently  Governor  Frank- 
lin, in  September,  1772,  recommended  the  enactment  of  a 
law  similar  to  that  of  New  York.3  Such  an  act  received  the 
governor's  assent  on  September  26,  1772.4  In  the  assem- 
bly the  bill  passed  by  a  narrow  margin,  the  affirmative  vote 
of  the  speaker  saving  it.5  The  boundary  acts  of  both  pro- 
vinces were  approved,  and  the  exasperating  and  lengthy 
dispute  was  settled.8 

The  surveyors  of  the  boundary  line,  John  Stevens,  Walter 
Rutherford,  Walter  Wickham  and  Samuel  Gale,  reported, 
on  November  30,  1774,  that  the  partition  line  had  been 
marked  "  so  that  it  may  be  sufficiently  known  and  dis- 
tinguished." 7  A  rock  on  the  west  side  of  the  Hudson  in 
latitude  of  the  41  degrees  had  been  marked.  Trees  along 
the  line  had  been  designated  "  with  a  Blaze  and  five  notches 
under  the  same."  Forty-eight  stone  monuments  were 
erected  at  one-mile  intervals  with  "  the  words  New  York 
on  the  North  Side  of  each  of  the  said  Monuments  and  the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1770.  '  Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  342. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  11,  1772.  *  Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  368. 
6  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  19,  1772. 

%N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  416.  7 Ibid.,  p.  150. 


235]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  235 

words  New  Jersey  on  the  south  side  of  each  of  the  said 
Monuments." 

In  a  question  of  this  nature  the  material  interests  of  the 
persons  concerned  not  unnaturally  determined  their  point 
of  view.  This  is  evident  when  it  is  considered  that,  al- 
though the  language  of  the  original  grant  was  remarkably 
free  from  ambiguities,  there  were  so  many  opinions  as  to 
where  the  true  line  should  go.  "  To  the  northward  as  far 
as  ye  Northermost  branch  of  the  said  Bay  or  River,  of 
Delaware  which  is  in  fourtie  one  degrees  and  fourtie  min- 
utes of  latitude,"  New  Jersey  was  to  extend  according  to 
the  grant.  The  confluence  of  the  Delaware  and  the  Mack- 
hackimack  was  in  latitude  41  degrees  and  21  minutes. 
Neither  the  specified  latitude  of  the  grant  nor  the  descriptive 
clause  as  to  the  northern  branch  of  the  river  was  observed. 
The  decision  seemed  to  fix  upon  a  point  midway  between 
a  line  run  at  random  in  17 19,  the  most  favorable  to  New 
Jersey,  and  the  line  claimed  by  New  York  as  the  one  agreed 
upon  in  1686,  the  most  favorable  to  that  province.  If  the 
point,  as  fixed,  is  regarded  as  a  compromise,  New  York 
fared  much  better  than  her  neighbor.  Regarded  in  the  light 
of  the  terms  of  the  grant,  New  Jersey's  interests  were  ap- 
parently sacrificed  to  those  of  her  more  powerful  and 
wealthy  rival. 

In  connection  with  the  northern  boundary  difficulty,  ref- 
erence may  be  made  to  the  disputed  claims  to  the  ownership 
of  Staten  Island.  A  mere  glance  at  the  map  shows  that 
this  island  is  geographically  a  part  of  New  Jersey.  The 
territorial  grant  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret,  quoted  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  included  the  tract  of  land  "  to 
the  Westward  of  Long  Island  and  Manhitas  Island  ".1 
This  clearly  indicates  that  the  Duke  of  York  granted  Staten 

x N.  J.  A.,  vol.  i,  p.  12. 


236  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [236 

Island  to  the  two  noblemen.  The  hostility  of  Governor 
Nicolls  to  the  Duke's  transfer  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  has 
been  mentioned,  and  he  never  Allowed  the  New  Jersey  au- 
thorities to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  island.  The  repre- 
sentations of  New  Jersey  to  secure  possession,  during  the 
proprietary  period,  and  once,  in  1704,  after  the  surrender 
to  the  king,  were  of  no  avail.1  From  that  time  until  after 
the  Revolution  no  formal  action  was  taken  in  the  matter, 
and  Staten  Island  was  recognized  as  belonging  to  New 
York.  All  boundary  disputes  between  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  were  not  adjusted  until  1833,  when  the  question  of 
the  jurisdiction  over  the  waters  lying  between  the  two  states 
was  decided. 

The  determination  of  the  northern  boundary  line  dis- 
turbed an  agreement  of  long  existence  between  the  East 
and  West  Jersey  proprietors.  An  agreement  between  Car- 
teret and  the  West  Jersey  proprietors,  in  1676,  declared  the 
line  between  the  two  divisions  to  be  one  drawn  from  Little 
Egg  Harbour  to  the  northernmost  point  of  the  province.2 
No  effort,  however,  was  made  to  run  the  line  for  several 
years.  Later,  when  attempts  were  made,  difficulties  en- 
sued.3 Twice,,  in  1686  and  again  in  1688,  negotiations  for 
the  purpose  fell  through.  In  the  last  named  year,  a  rather 
arbitrary  agreement  was  made  between  Robert  Barclay  of 
East  Jersey  and  Daniel  Coxe  of  West  Jersey.4  So  unfav- 
orable to  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  was  this  arrangement 
that  they  rejected  it,  and  thirty  years  passed  before  negotia- 
tions were  again  resumed.  To  run  the  line  in  accordance 
with  the  agreement  between  Carteret  and  the  West  Jersey 
proprietors  in  1676,  was  the  decision  in  1718.     This  was, 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  i,  p.  349,  350;  iii,  p.  61.  *Ibid.,  p,  212. 

'Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  633  et  seq. 

4  Samuel  Smith,  History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  196. 


237]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  237 

of  course,  not  such  an  attractive  proposition  for  the  men 
of  the  western  division.  A  legislative  act  for  the  purpose 
was  passed  and  commissioners  were  named,  but  the  oppo- 
sition of  Coxe  and  the  return  of  Governor  Hunter  to  Eng- 
land interfered  with  the  success  of  the  project  at  that  time. 

Although  the  efforts  of  the  Coxe  interests  to  secure  the 
disallowance  of  the  act  of  1719  for  running  the  line  failed, 
almost  another  three  decades  elapsed  before  an  attempt  was 
made  to  make  the  surveys.  The  West  Jersey  proprietors 
persistently  refused  to  join  with  the  eastern  proprietors  in 
determining  the  boundary,  and  in  1743  the  latter  decided  to 
run  the  line  ex  parte.  John  Hamilton  and  Andrew  John- 
stone, as  commissioners  under  the  partition  act  of  17 19,  ap- 
pointed John  Lawrence  to  run  the  line.  A  commission  and 
a  set  of  twenty-one  instructions  were  issued  to  him  in  the 
summer  of  1743.1  To  aid  Lawrence  in  the  work  he  was 
"  to  employ  Martin  Ryerson  or  Gersham  Mott  or  some 
other  as  an  assistant  surveyor  "  and  before  the  end  of  that 
year  the  division  line  of  the  two  sections  of  New  Jersey 
had  been  determined.  This  independent  action  on  the  part 
of  the  East  Jerseymen  naturally  did  not  receive  the  un- 
qualified approval  of  the  landholders  of  the  other  division.2 
Nevertheless  the  former  insisted  upon  the  justice  of  the 
Lawrence  surveys  and  the  West  Jersey  proprietors  by  sub- 
sequent acts  practically  acquiesced  therein. 

It  will  be  remembered  from  the  discussion  of  the  northern 
boundary  question  that  the  West  Jersey  proprietors  did  not 
regard  themselves  as  directly  affected  by  that  controversy. 
The  Lawrence  line  had  been  run  in  1743  from  the  most 
southerly  point  of  the  east  side  of  Little  Egg  Harbor  to 
what  was  then  regarded  as  the  most  northerly  point  of 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  154. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  East  Jersey  Proprietors,  Aug.  17,  1742. 


238  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [238 

the  province,  in  latitude  of  41  degrees  and  40  minutes.  By 
the  decision  of  the  royal  commission  in  1769,  however,  the 
northernmost  point  was  thrown  far  to  the  eastward.  Con- 
sequently it  was  decidedly  to  the  advantage  of  the  West 
Jersey  proprietors  to  regard  the  newly-determined  point  at 
the  confluence  of  the  Delaware  and  the  Mackhackimack 
as  the  northern  point  of  division  between  the  two  parts  of 
the  province.  On  December  1,  1775,  Daniel  Coxe,  then 
president  of  the  council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors,  peti- 
tioned the  legislature  for  permission  to  have  introduced 
at  the  next  session  a  bill  for  appointing  commissioners  to 
settle  the  line  dispute.1  He  suggested  that  the  East  Jersey 
proprietors  should  acquiesce  in  such  a  mode  of  determining 
the  differences.  The  desired  leave  was  granted.  As  no 
further  sessions  of  the  provincial  legislature  were  held,  and 
the  turmoil  of  the  Revolution  interrupted,  the  subject  was 
dropped  for  some  years.  Although  outside  of  the  period 
of  this  study,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  an  application  to 
the  state  legislature  in  1782  for  the  above  mentioned  pur- 
pose was  rejected  by  a  substantial  majority.2 

Had  the  plan  of  the  West  Jersey  proprietors,  to  have 
the  partition  line  run  from  the  northern  point  as  deter- 
mined in  1769  to  Little  Egg  Harbor,  succeeded,  they  would 
have  gained  about  four  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand 
acres  of  territory.3  The  line  fixed  in  1743  gave  West 
Jersey  an  excess  of  at  least  a  million  acres  over  East  Jersey. 
To  have  made  the  disparity  almost  two  million  acres  was 
more  than  the  men  of  the  eastern  division  were  willingly 
disposed  to  allow.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  any 
thought  of  the  equalization  of  the  two  divisions,  the  position 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  i,  1775. 

J  Gordon,  History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  74. 

%Jbid.t  p.  75,  statistical  note. 


239]  BOUNDARY  DISPUTES  239 

of  the  West  Jerseymen  was  not  unnatural  or  extreme. 
Both  parties  had  in  practise  regarded  the  north  partition 
point  as  marking  one  end  of  the  line.  The  final  decision 
as  to  the  location  of  that  point  was  not  rendered  until  1769, 
when  it  was  officially  declared  to  be  not  in  latitude  41  de- 
grees and  40  minutes,  but  at  the  junction  of  two  streams. 
According  to  the  final  decision,  latitude  41  degrees  and  40 
minutes  was  far  outside  of  the  province,  and  could  not 
properly  be  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  a  line  to  divide 
the  province  into  two  parts.  Whether  the  point  as  fixed 
by  the  royal  commission  was  equitable  is  another  question 
The  fact  is,  it  was  accepted  and  regarded  as  the  northern- 
most point  of  New  Jersey. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Judicial  System 

A  study  of  the  judicial  system  of  New  Jersey  shows  that 
little  essential  change  had  taken  place  since  its  organization 
under  Lord  Cornbury's  "Ordinance  for  Establishing  Courts 
of  Judicature/'  in  1704.  The  materials,  existing  in  New 
Jersey  under  the  proprietary  system  and  in  the  other  colo- 
nies, were  systematized  and  formed  the  basis  for  the  ordi- 
nance.1 

This  ordinance  marked  at  least  one  bright  spot  in  the 
corrupt  Cornbury  administration.  The  reorganization  pro- 
vided for  justices  of  the  peace,  with  jurisdiction  in  debt  and 
trespass  cases  up  to  forty  shillings,  a  right  of  appeal  to  the 
court  of  sessions  being  granted  in  cases  involving  over 
twenty  shillings.  There  was  to  be  a  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  held  in  every  county  where  there  were  Courts  of  Gen- 
eral Sessions.  These  courts  could  hear  and  determine  all 
common  law  actions,  with  the  proviso  that  actions  involving 
ten  pounds  or  over  could  be  heard  in  the  Supreme  Court. 
Courts  of  General  Sessions  were  held  four  times  a  year  at 
designated  times  and  places.  The  highest  regular  court  was 
the  Supreme  Court,  having  jurisdiction  in  all  pleas,  "  civil, 
criminal  and  mixt,  as  fully  and  amply,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  whatsoever,  as  the  Courts  of  Queens  Bench,  Com- 
mon Pleas  and  Exchequer  within  her  Majesties  Kingdom 

1  For  this  general  subject,  see  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey, 
and  Tanner,  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  ch.  xxiii. 

240  [240 


241  ]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  241 

of  England."  *  The  provision  of  the  ordinance  that  the 
Supreme  Court  should  sit  alternately  at  Perth  Amboy  and 
Burlington,  was  later  superseded  by  an  ordinance  of  1728, 
establishing  two  Supreme  Courts,  one  at  each  of  the  above 
named  places.2 

And  thus  outlined,  such  to-day  is  the  general  structure 
of  the  judiciary.  Changes  naturally  did  occur  in  the  prac- 
tise of  the  courts.  Such  alterations  were  instituted  by  either 
royal  instructions,  governor's  ordinances  or  provincial  legis- 
lation. Let  us  trace  these  alterations  during  the  period 
under  consideration. 

During  Belcher's  administration,  on  December  5,  1753, 
an  additional  instruction  was  sent  to  the  colonial  governors 
altering  the  methods  of  appeals.3  The  royal  instructions  in 
New  Jersey  had  from  the  first  allowed  the  right  of  appeal 
from  the  highest  provincial  court  to  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil in  cases  exceeding  £100  Sterling.  If  the  case  involved 
over  £200,  appeal  might  be  made  to  the  crown's  privy  coun- 
cil.4 The  new  instruction  cited  this  method  as  having  be- 
come defective  and  improper.  Appeals  were  now  to  be 
made  to  governor  and  council  only  when  the  cases  involved 
at  least  £300  Sterling,  and  to  the  crown  in  privy  council 
when  the  amount  exceeded  £500.  Only  when  security  was 
given  that  the  suit  would  be  prosecuted  was  appeal  to  Eng- 
land allowable.  The  instruction  further  provided  that 
where  judges  of  the  court  from  which  the  appeal  was  made 
were  members  of  the  provincial  council,  they  could  be  pres- 
ent at  hearings  and  give  reasons  for  their  judgment  but 
could  not  vote.     Of  course,  execution  was  suspended  until 

1  For  the  Cornbury  Ordinance,  see  Field,  op.  tit.,  Appendix  C. 
'Field,  op.  tit.,  Appendix  F. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  188. 
*/6id.,  vol.  ii,  p.  551. 


242  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [242 

the  final  determination  of  appeals.  Exception  to  the  £500 
rule  was  also  made  in  cases  involving  sums  payable  to  the 
crown,  when  appeal  could  be  made  even  though  a  less  sum 
was  involved. 

In  December,  1761,  an  instruction  which  later  had  its  in- 
fluence in  the  Revolution  was  prepared  by  the  lords  of  trade, 
and  subsequently  sent  to  the  royal  governors.  Up  to  this 
time  the  royal  instructions  to  the  New  Jersey  governors 
guarded  against  arbitrary  removals  of  judges  by  making 
their  commissions  unlimited  as  to  time,  which  naturally 
came  to  be  interpreted  by  the  colonists  to  mean  during  good 
behavior.  In  1761  Lieutenant  Governor  Colden  of  New 
York  with  great  hesitation  assented  to  an  act  of  the  legisla- 
ture explicitly  providing  that  the  judges  should  hold  their 
commissions  during  good  behavior.  The  additional  instruc- 
tion recited  that  certain  of  the  colonial  legislatures  had  en- 
acted laws  granting  judges  good-behavior  tenures,  and 
that  certain  governors  had,  contrary  to  instructions,  granted 
some  commissions  during  good  behavior.  Such  commis- 
sions were  declared  to  be  for  the  advantage  of  neither  colo- 
nies nor  home  government  and  the  governors  were  ordered, 
upon  pain  of  removal,  to  refuse  their  assent  to  legislative 
acts,  granting  like  tenures  to  judges  of  the  provincial  courts. 
Commissions  were  to  be  granted  during  pleasure  only, 
"  agreeable  to  what  has  been  the  Ancient  Practise  and 
Usage  "  in  the  colonies.1 

That  such  could  be  said  to  have  been  "  the  Ancient  Prac- 
tise and  Usage  "  in  general  in  the  colonies  may  not  be  true 
and  strict  adherence  to  it  had  not  been  given  in  New  Jersey. 
An  instance  of  this  is  found  in  New  Jersey  history  in  the 
case  of  the  Jones-Morris  contest  for  the  chief  justiceship, 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  329.    This  instruction  was  sent  to  the  gover- 
nors under  date  of  Dec.  12,  1761. 


243]  THE  WDICIAL  SYSTEM  243 

later  to  be  mentioned.  That  the  crown  made  colonial 
judges  dependent  upon  his  will  became  one  of  the  chief 
grievances  against  the  mother  country  in  the  American 
Revolution.1  It  was  asserted  by  the  colonists  that  in  Eng- 
land this  wrong  had  been  righted,  years  before,  by  the  Eng- 
lish Revolution.  The  lords  of  trade  maintained  that  the 
circumstances  in  the  colonies  were  in  no  way  similar  to 
what  they  had  been  in  Great  Britain.2  They  complained, 
and  not  without  some  truth,  that  owing  to  the  lack  of  a 
suitable  allowance  for  the  judges,  governors  had  been  ob- 
liged to  commission  inferior  persons,  who  consulted  their 
own  interests  and  became  "  the  Partizans  of  a  factious  As- 
sembly," upon  whom  they  were  dependent  for  support.8 
As  events  proved,  their  proposed  remedy  for  an  evil,  which 
they  exaggerated,  was  scarcely  remedial. 

In  New  Jersey  the  royal  authorities  were  soon  given  op- 
portunity to  display  their  firmness  in  this  matter.  Upon 
the  death  of  George  the  Second,  there  appears  to  have  been 
a  cessation  of  business  in  the  Supreme  Courts,  because  the 
judge's  commissions  had  not  been  renewed.4  Upon  his  ar- 
rival in  the  province,  Governor  Hardy,  fearing  evil  conse- 
quences from  such  a  condition  of  affairs,  renewed  the  com- 
missions "  as  they  have  hitherto  been  granted,  which  is 
during  good  behaviour."  5  Moreover  the  assembly  refused 
to  make  provision  for  judges  who  accepted  commissions 
with  tenure  during  pleasure.  The  governor  had  commis- 
sioned three  judges,  Morris  and  his  two  associates  on  the 
Supreme  Court  bench,  during  good  behavior  and  the  lords 
of  trade,  as  previously  mentioned,  recommended  his  re- 
moval.    Before  Hardy  received  notification  of  his  removal, 

1  See  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  312.  3 Ibid.,  p.  313. 

*Ibid.,  p.  346.  s Ibid.,  p.  346. 


244  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [244 

he  had  revoked  several  commissions  granted  by  Belcher 
to  judges  of  the  Common  Pleas,  having  the  objectionable 
tenure,  and  the  Supreme  Court  judges  thus  commissioned 
had  agreed  to  accept  commissions  as  the  king  wished.1 
Eleventh-hour  compliance  did  not  satisfy  the  authorities, 
however,  and  the  governor  was  deprived  of  his  office.2  The 
home  officials  were  also  thus  enabled  to  show  that  a  strict 
adherence  to  this  new  instruction  would  be  required. 

In  May,  1764,  during  Franklin's  rule,  the  lords  of  trade 
prepared  an  additional  instruction  against  the  taking  of 
exorbitant  fees  in  the  colonies.3  The  governors  were  or- 
dered to  have  displayed  in  all  public  offices  tables  of  the 
legal  fees,  and  further,  to  enjoin  all  officers  to  receive  only 
the  legal  fees  or  suffer  removal  and  prosecution.  That  this 
instruction  was  ever  sent  to  the  governors  does  not  appear. 

An  "  Ordinance  for  Holding  the  Supreme  Court  for  the 
Province  of  New  Jersey  "  was  issued  by  Governor  Franklin 
on  May  11,  1764.4  The  appointed  times  for  holding  the 
sessions  had  come  to  be  inconvenient  and  consequently 
were  changed.  Doubtless  because  of  the  growth  of  the 
province,  there  was  a  provision  that  if,  after  the  regular 
five-day  session,  a  "  Multiplicity  of  Business  then  Depend- 
ing "  rendered  it  expedient,  the  regular  term  at  such  time 
might  be  prolonged  to  the  Tuesday  following  the  commence- 
ment of  the  term.  The  regular  term  was  from  Tuseday 
to  Saturday.  Appeals,  this  ordinance  stated,  were  to  be 
made  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
"  England  and  the  laws  of  our  Province  of  New  Jersey  not 
Repugnant  thereto."  Provision  was  made  for  holding4 
yearly  Circuit  Courts  in  all  the  counties,  except  Cape  May, 
to  be  presided  over  by  a  Supreme  Court  justice.    The  times 

1iV.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  367.  *Zbid.,  p.  361. 

lIbid.,  p.  440.  KIbid.y  p.  434. 


245]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  245 

and  places  of  such  sittings  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
justices.  Cape  May  causes  were  to  be  tried  in  Cumberland 
County.  This  provision  for  circuit  courts  was  essentially 
the  same  as  under  Hunter's  ordinance  of  1725.1 

An  important  ordinance  relating  to  the  judiciary  was  the 
"  Ordinance  in  relation  to  the  Court  of  Chancery,"  issued 
by  Governor  Franklin  on  March  28,  1770.  Equity  Courts 
encountered  considerable  hostility  in  the  colonies,  and  al- 
though this  was  perhaps  most  pronounced  in  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania,  nevertheless  New  Jersey  harbored  much 
similar  distrust.2  Lord  Cornbury  by  ordinance  had  con- 
stituted the  governor,  lieutenant  governor  and  any  three 
councillors  as  a  Court  of  Chancery,  but  Governor  Hunter 
exercised  the  powers  alone.  This  one-man  power  was  op- 
posed, but  the  action  of  Hunter  meeting  with  the  approval 
of  the  crown,  the  exercise  of  chancery  powers  continued 
under  his  ordinance  until  1770. 

In  April,  1768,  Franklin  addressed  the  legislature  upon 
the  subject  of  the  Chancery  Court.3  Mischiefs  would  at- 
tend its  disuse,  said  the  governor,  for  which  reason  he  had 
maintained  the  court  to  his  own  pecuniary  disadvantage. 
As  there  was  no  salary  for  the  necessary  officers  and  the 
fees  were  insufficient,  he  recommended  a  reasonable  allow- 
ance in  order  that  appointments  to  the  necessary  offices 
could  be  made.  The  assembly  asked  the  governor  to  notify 
them  specifically  what  officers  were  needed.  Although  he 
sent  them  a  list  of  the  officers  and  suggested  fit  salaries  the 
assembly  did  not  enter  into  the  proper  measures,  being  loath 
to  create  new  offices  and  expend  extra  funds. 

Thereupon  the  governor  turned  to  the  council  for  advice. 
They  were  informed  that  doubts  had  arisen  as  to  the  au- 

1  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  287.  *  Ibid.,  p.  108  et  seq. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  467. 


246  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [246 

thority  of  the  governor  to  execute  the  office  of  chancellor, 
and  were  asked  to  report  in  writing,  before  May  14,  1770.1 
This  was  in  November,  1769,  and  meanwhile  all  chancery 
proceedings  were  to  be  suspended. 

The  opinions  of  the  councillors  were  varied  and  interest- 
ing, the  majority  favoring  an  ordinance  appointing  the  gov- 
ernor to  be  chancellor.  The  most  elaborate  argument  was 
that  of  Richard  Stockton,  who  submitted  his  opinion  in  the 
form  of  a  letter  to  Hillsborough,  the  Secretary  of  State.2 
Considering  the  subject  under  these  two  questions,  "  1st, 
Whether  a  Court  of  Equity  does  Exist  in  this  Province? 
and  if  it  does,  2dly,  Whether  the  Governor  is  the  Judge  of 
it?"  he  decides  both  affirmatively.  He  supports  his  de- 
cision by  a  long  and  able  argument.  Frederick  Smyth  was 
of  opinion  that  as  the  governor  had  no  special  commission 
as  chancellor,  nor  any  authority  as  such  under  his  general 
commission  as  governor,  he  was  not  legally  authorized  so 
to  act.3  The  chief  justice  further  maintained  that  provision 
for  such  a  court  would  be  made  after  application  to  the 
crown.  Inasmuch  as  Cornbury  had  been  justified  in  the 
original  establishment  of  a  Court  of  Chancery  in  New  Jer- 
sey, wrote  Samuel  Smith,  the  present  governor  with  the 
same  authority  in  his  commission  had  power  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  council  to  continue  the  court.4  After  a 
rather  extended  argument,  Charles  Read  concluded  that  no 
equity  court  existed  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  matter  being 
important  should  be  settled  in  England.5  David  Ogden, 
reaching  his  opinion  by  answering  eight  questions  at  great 
length,  believed  that  the  governor  had  the  power  neither  by 
his  commission,  his  instructions,  nor  by  the  common  law  of 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  25. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  155.  3 Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  121. 

*Ibid.,  p.  128.  5 Ibid.,  p.  130. 


247]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  247 

England  to  act  as  sole  agent  in  equity  cases.1  The  power 
to  erect  the  court  was  vested  in  the  legislature,  declared 
Ogden.  With  great  interest  in  the  case,  the  learned  Ogden 
submitted  a  "  further  Opinion,"  arriving  of  course  at  the 
same  general  conclusion.  James  Parker  agreed  that  it 
never  was  the  intention  that  the  governor  should  act  as 
chancellor,  but  that  a  chancery  court  might  be  established 
by  ordinance  and  then  the  king's  further  instruction  asked.2 
John  Ladd  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  court  still  existed.3 
Although  existing,  the  court  had  not  been  properly  estab- 
lished since  171 3,  observed  John  Stevens.  An  ordinance 
should  be  issued  and  the  king's  further  instruction  sought.* 
That  if  the  court  does  not  exist,  the  governor  has  full  power 
to  erect  it  and  should  issue  an  ordinance  for  the  purpose, 
was  the  opinion  of  John  Smith.6  Lord  Stirling  wrote  that 
Franklin  never  having  been  so  appointed  was  not  justified 
in  acting  as  chancellor.*  The  necessity  for  such  a  court 
was  however  apparent,  he  continued,  and  one  or  more 
proper  persons  should  be  by  ordinance  commissioned  as 
judges.  In  addition  to  laying  before  the  council  these 
opinions,  the  governor  submitted  some  of  his  royal  instruc- 
tions to  them  and  some  extracts  from  council  minutes  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject.7  Taking  all  the  materials  into  con- 
sideration, the  council  advised  that  the  attorney  general 
draw  up  an  ordinance  for  better  establishing  the  Court  of 
Chancery  and  appointing  the  governor  Chancellor.8  After 
subsequent  approval  of  the  ordinance  by  the  council,  the 
governor,  on  March  28,  1770,  took  the  oath  as  chancellor. 
The  ordinance  purported  to  be  for  the  better  establish- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  135.  ' Ibid.,  p.  161. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  163.  *Ibid.,  p.  164. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  165.  «Ibid.,  p.  167. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  154.  sIbid.,  p.  169. 


248  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [248 

ing  of  the  Court  of  Chancery,  which  had  always  existed  in 
the  province.1  Franklin  was  appointed  by  virtue  of  the 
powers  under  the  great  seal.  The  form  of  oath  was  pre- 
scribed and  the  chancellor  was  empowered  to  fix  days  for 
the  hearing  and  determination  of  causes,  to  appoint  and 
commission  necessary  masters,  clerks,  examiners,  registers 
and  other  officers,  and  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for 
carrying  on  the  business  of  the  court.  This  ordinance  con- 
tinued until  1776,  but  the  Court  of  Chancery  under  the 
State  government  succeeded  to  virtually  the  same  powers. 

On  June  19,  1772,  Governor  Franklin  issued  a  proclama- 
tion appointing  four  regular  terms  of  the  Court  of  Chan- 
cery, two  to  be  held  at  Perth  Amboy,  and  two  at  Burlington.2 
The  day  for  the  beginning  of  the  term  was  in  each  case 
appointed  and  they  were  "  to  continue  from  Day  to  Day  as 
long  as  may  be  expedient." 

The  first  legislative  alteration  in  the  practise  of  the 
courts  during  this  period  was  the  "  Act  to  prevent  Actions 
of  Fifteen  Pounds,  and  under,  being  brought  into  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  this  Colony,"  passed  in  1741.3  This  act  was 
a  bone  of  contention  between  Governor  Morris  and  the  as- 
sembly. He  regarded  it  as  no  more  than  an  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  popular  body  to  restrict  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
highest  court  and  lessen  the  judges'  salaries.4  Only  because 
it  was  a  temporary  act,  having  the  council's  approval,  was 
his  assent  given.  His  suggestion  to  the  lords  of  trade,  how- 
ever, that  their  disallowance  of  the  act  would  be  more  bene- 
ficial to  prevent  such  attempts  by  the  assembly  in  the  future, 
than  his  refusal  to  assent  would  be,  was  not  followed.  The 
lords  decided  that  they  should  first  learn  how  the  bill  worked 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  184.  tIbid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  289. 

8  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey,  p.  i59« 
'Morris  Papers,  p.  140. 


249]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  249 

in  practise,  before  they  proposed  its  disallowance.1  It  was 
forbidden  to  bring  suits  for  less  than  fifteen  pounds,  Queen 
Anne's  proclamation  money,  into  the  Supreme  Court,  ex- 
cept in  cases  involving  land  titles.  A  penalty  was  prescribed 
for  bringing  suits  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  act. 

In  1744,  Morris  complained  to  the  lords  of  trade  that  his 
former  fears  had  not  been  groundless.2  The  act  had  been 
prejudicial  to  the  chief  justice  and  had  lessened  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Supreme  Court.  As  it  was  now  about  to  expire, 
the  assembly,  he  rather  wildly  asserted,  would  probably 
make  it  perpetual.  The  bill  was  introduced  in  the  March 
session  of  1746,  but  the  council  refused  to  pass  it.  The 
second  assembly  that  Governor  Belcher  met,  however,  came 
to  an  agreement  with  the  council  more  readily,  and  the  bill, 
limited  to  five  years,  was  passed,  February  18,  1748.  It 
was  subsequently  renewed  in  1753,  and  in  1760  was  con- 
tinued without  limitation.8 

When  Morris  denounced  the  bill  he  was  representing  to 
the  home  officials  the  side  of  the  office  holders.  The  benefits 
to  the  people,  however,  outweighed  any  disadvantages. 
The  opposition  of  the  council,  in  1746,  to  the  renewal  of 
the  act  was  doubtless  due  to  its  domination  by  Morris. 
Only  a  year  later  with  the  same  council,  but  a  different  gov- 
ernor, there  was  little  or  no  opposition  to  its  passage. 

In  1748,  another  act  which  had  been  strenuously  objected 
to  by  Morris  and  his  council  was  rather  quietly  passed  in 
Belcher's  administration.  This  was  "  an  Act  to  oblige 
the  several  Sheriffs  of  this  Colony  of  New  Jersey  to  give 
Security,  take  the  Oaths  or  Affirmations  therein  directed 
for  the  Discharge  of  their  Offices,  and  to  prevent  their  too 
long  Continuance  therein."  *     Complaints  were  upon  occa- 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  150.  *Ibid.,  p.  183. 

* N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  406;  Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  227. 
4Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  156. 


250  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [250 

sion  made  that  sheriffs  refused  to  give  the  required  security 
for  the  proper  discharge  of  their  duties.1  Upon  three  oc- 
casions, in  1742,  attempts  were  made  by  the  assembly  to 
secure  the  passage  of  the  above-named  bill,  only  to  come  to 
a  disagreement  with  the  council  upon  amendments,  and  to 
have  it  finally  rejected  at  each  session.  The  opposition  to 
the  bill  was  engendered  because  it  limited  slightly  the  gov- 
ernor's power  in  appointing  sheriffs.  And  Governor  Morris, 
seconded  by  his  council,  was  always  touchy  regarding  his 
prerogatives. 

The  measure  received  Governor  Belcher's  assent,  January 
18,  1748,  and  was  later  allowed  by  the  royal  authorities. 
The  lords  of  trade,  however,  did  not  show  eagerness  to  ap- 
prove the  measure,  for  after  it  had  been  reported  favorably 
by  Matthew  Lamb,  one  of  the  royal  counsellors-at-law,  they 
returned  it  to  him  for  his  reconsideration.2  He  justified 
his  decision  on  the  ground  that  similar  acts  had  been  passed 
and  confirmed  in  neighboring  provinces,  and  even  in  Eng- 
land legislative  acts  had  somewhat  limited  the  crown's  au- 
thority in  the  appointment  of  sheriffs.3 

By  the  act  sheriffs  were  obliged  to  enter  into  bond  for 
£800,  except  the  Cape  May  county  sheriff,  whose  bond  was 
fixed  at  £200.  The  form  of  oath  which  the  officers  were  to 
take  was  identical  with  one  required  in  the  "  Act  for  secur- 
ing His  Majesty's  Government  in  New  Jersey,"  passed  in 
1722.4  A  special  form  of  affirmation  for  "  the  People 
called  Quakers "  was  prescribed.  Sheriffs  who  did  not 
enter  into  bond  and  take  the  oaths  were  disqualified.  The 
oaths  could  be  administered  by  any  judge  of  a  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  or  any  mayor  or  chief  magistrate.     The 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  90. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  296.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  329. 

4Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  62. 


251]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  25 1 

form  of  the  required  bond  was  also  given.  The  last  sec- 
tion, limiting  the  sheriff's  continuance  in  office  to  three 
years,  was  the  provision  that  had  caused  opposition  to  the 
act.  They  could  hold  office  again  after  three  years.  Sher- 
iffs, furthermore,  were  required  to  be  freeholders  and  resi- 
dents of  the  county  for  which  they  were  appointed. 

The  question  of  the  amount  of  the  fees  which  should 
properly  be  taken  by  the  various  officers  of  government  was 
subject  to  frequent  dispute,  the  parsimonious  assembly  en- 
deavoring to  make  the  legal  fees  as  low  as  possible.  An 
act  to  establish  fees  and  regulate  the  practise  of  the  law 
had  been  passed  in  1733  under  Cosby,  but  was  disallowed  by 
the  crown  two  years  later.1 

Ten  years  later,  in  December,  1743,  another  act  for  regu- 
lating fees  was  passed  but  met  the  same  fate  as  the  former 
measure.2  It  was  not  objectionable  in  point  of  law,  but  com- 
plaints had  been  received  that  the  fees  determined  upon 
were  too  small,  "  so  inconsiderable  that  no  Persons  of  Char- 
acter or  Reputation  will  care  to  accept  Employment 
therein."  8  This  was  Governor  Morris's  complaint,  and  he 
had  a  smart  altercation  with  the  assembly  over  the  bill. 
The  measure  was  passed  with  a  suspending  clause,  but  the 
assembly  ordered  the  bill  printed,  soon  after  its  passage,  and 
by  "  suggesting  "  that  the  judges  "  ought "  to  conform  to 
it,  practically  ordered  its  enforcement  before  the  royal 
pleasure  was  known.4 

This  was  unwarrantable  conduct  and  justified  the  gov- 
ernor in  protesting  strongly  against  the  assembly,  as  it  is 
needless  to  say  he  did.5  The  conduct  of  the  assembly  in 
having  the  bill  printed  prematurely  was  given  as  a  further 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  v,  p.  377. 

tIbid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  309.  3Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  238. 

'/bid.,  p.  239.  %Ibid.y  vol.  xv,  p.  315. 


252  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [252 

reason  for  its  disallowance.  The  royal  disallowance,  dated 
at  Kensington,  June  28,  1749,  was  laid  before  the  council 
of  New  Jersey  by  Governor  Belcher  on  October  12th.  This 
is  a  striking  example,  also,  of  the  leisurely  manner  in  which 
the  wheels  of  government  moved.  The  bill  was  passed, 
December  5,  1743,  and  the  council  notified  of  its  disallow- 
ance, October  12,  1749. 

Meanwhile  an  act  providing  among  other  things  "  for 
the  Payment  of  the  Services  of  the  Several  Officers  of  the 
Colony,  and  for  preventing  the  said  Officers  from  taking 
exorbitant  Fees  "  was  passed  in  February,  1748,  and  re- 
ceived the  royal  assent,  November  23,  1749.1  This  act  had 
passed  the  council  with  practically  no  opposition.2  It  set 
forth  that  after  the  king's  assent  only  the  fees  therein 
stated  should  be  accepted  by  public  officers  for  their  ser- 
vices. For  every  offence  in  accepting  greater  fees,  £20  was 
to  be  forfeited.  The  law  in  addition  enacted  that  if  a  cause 
was  lost  because  of  neglect  or  mismanagement  on  the  part 
of  an  attorney,  he  should  be  liable  for  damages.  The  fees 
as  established  by  this  act  continued  to  be  in  force  during  the 
rest  of  the  colonial  period,  but  were  frequently  complained 
against  as  insufficient,  and  scarce  affording  the  officials  a 
proper  maintenance.8 

"  An  Act  to  erect  and  establish  Courts  in  the  several 
Counties  in  this  Colony,  for  the  Trial  of  small  Causes"  was 
passed  in  1748,  as  a  previous  bill  for  the  same  purpose  was 
about  to  expire.  The  original  measure  unfortunately  has 
been  lost,  but  is  thought  "  to  have  continued  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  recover  Debts  and  other 
Demands  for  and  under  Five  Pounds."  4    The  act  passed 

^llinson,  op.  ctt.,  p.  160. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  pp.  614-618.  lIbid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  592. 

*Allinson,  op.  ctt.,  p.  188. 


253]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  253 

the  legislature  without  difficulty  in  1748.  Actions  for  debt 
involving  under  £5  were  made  triable  before  any  one  Justice 
of  the  Peace.1  In  cases  involving  over  40  shillings  either 
party  might  .demand  trial  by  a  jury  of  six  men.  Appeal 
might  be  made  to  the  next  Court  of  Common  Pleas  also  in 
cases  of  more  than  twenty  shillings,  except  where  the  trial 
had  been  before  six  jurors.  Fees  to  be  taken  in  actions 
covered  by  this  act  were  fixed.  The  bill  of  course  detailed 
the  process  necessary  to  its  operation,  and  excluded  certain 
actions  from  the  operation  of  the  act.  It  was  to  continue 
for  seven  years. 

An  act  with  the  same  title  was  passed  in  1760,  the  former 
bill  having  "  been  found  very  beneficial  to  the  inhabitants 
of  this  Colony;  and  it  being  near  expired  of  its  own  limita- 
tion." 2  It  modified  the  former  act,  in  that  actions  under 
£6  were  to  be  cognizable  before  any  one  justice,  but  appeals 
could  be  taken  in  judgment  of  20  shillings  or  more,  as 
before,  except  where  a  jury  verdict  had  been  given.  This 
act  likewise  was  limited  to  seven  years.  In  1769  and  1775 
it  was  renewed  after  expiration.  In  every  case  the  council 
made  certain  amendments  to  which  the  assembly  assented. 

The  legislature  had  passed  an  "  Act  to  erect  Courts  in 
the  several  Counties  in  this  Colony  for  the  Trial  of  Causes 
of  Ten  Pounds  and  under,"  to  which  the  governor  assented 
on  December  6,  1769.8  In  the  council  this  measure  had  en- 
countered opposition  and  was  disallowed  by  the  crown  in 
June,  1 77 1.4  The  assembly  having  been  notified  of  the  royal 
disallowance,  expressed  regret  inasmuch  as  it  was  intended 
to  make  the  recovery  of  small  debts  easier  and  less  costly.6 

1  Ncvill,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  vol.  i,  p.  388. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  335. 

8  JV.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  217. 

*fbid.,  p.  261.  iIbid.,  p.  219. 


254  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [254 

The  law  had  been  in  operation  up  to  the  time  of  its  disallow- 
ance and  in  the  opinion  of  the  lower  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture had  "  answered  the  Ends  proposed,  and  proved  bene- 
ficial to  the  People."  The  governor  issued  a  proclamation 
declaring  the  act  void.  The  order  of  the  Privy  Council 
does  not  state  the  reasons  for  the  disallowance  of  the  act. 

There  appears  to  have  been  some  doubt  in  the  colony  as 
to  the  effect  of  the  death  of  George  II  upon  the  proceedings 
of  the  courts  transacted  after  his  demise.  The  justices  and 
practitioners  in  the  Supreme  Court,  expressing  doubts  to 
Governor  Boone  as  to  the  validity  in  the  reign  of  George  III 
of  an  ordinance  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  late  king, 
urged  him  to  issue  a  new  ordinance.1  In  order  to  prevent 
the  possible  interruption  of  legal  proceedings,  the  council 
advised  the  governor  to  adopt  the  suggested  course.  The 
ordinance  is  not  given,  and  inasmuch  as  an  act  of  assembly 
for  the  purpose  was  passed  shortly  thereafter  doubtless  was 
never  issued. 

The  act  of  assembly  was  entitled  "  for  obviating  Doubts 
respecting  the  Acts  of  Assembly  passed  last  Session;  and 
for  Confirming  the  Proceedings  of  the  Courts  of  Justice  in 
this  Province,  since  the  Demise  of  his  late  Majesty."  2  It 
confirmed  the  legislative  and  judicial  proceedings  in  the 
colony  subsequent  to  the  death  of  George  II  and  previous 
to  the  proclamation  of  George  III,  provided  for  the  future 
continuance  of  assemblies  until  six  months  after  the  death 
of  the  crown,  and  applied  the  above  six  months  provision 
to  the  courts  and  their  officers.  This  act  was  disallowed  in 
1 76 1,  as  materially  affecting  the  royal  prerogative.3  The 
lords  of  trade  declared  that  no  doubts  had  ever  arisen  or 
could  arise  "  with  any  Shadow  of  reason  "  regarding  the 

1JV.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  232. 

1  Nevill,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  300.  *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  331. 


255]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  255 

validity  of  acts  legally  enacted  after  the  death  of  a  ruler. 
The  provision  continuing  the  courts  and  their  officers  was 
objectionable  because  it  might  be  interpreted  to  deprive  the 
crown  of  the  power  to  remove  officers  or  suspend  commis- 
sions during  the  six  months'  interval.  The  order  in  coun- 
cil giving  notification  of  the  disallowance  was  laid  before 
the  New  Jersey  council,  April  6,  1762.1 

Another  legislative  enactment  pertaining  to  the  judiciary 
was  disallowed  in  1771.  The  act,  however,  had  been  passed 
in  1765,  during  the  Stamp  Act  agitation.  That  it  was 
aimed  at  the  Stamp  Act,  Franklin  may  have  thought  possible, 
but  such  doubtless  was  not  the  case,  for  the  people  did  not 
seriously  intend  to  use  stamped  paper.  The  act,  which  was 
never  printed,  was  "  for  regulating  the  Practise  of  the  Law, 
and  other  Purposes  therein  mentioned."  2  The  law  would 
have  reduced  the  number  of  court  proceedings,  and  pre- 
vented certain  illegal  practises  of  the  lawyers.  Governor 
Franklin  had  assented  to  the  measure  only  with  a  suspend- 
ing clause,  but  agreed  to  the  necessity  of  the  law,  and  so 
informed  the  lords  of  trade.8 

The  governor  had  notified  the  lords  that  the  assembly 
would  urge  its  confirmation.  After  waiting  patiently  for 
five  years  to  hear  from  the  New  Jersey  assembly,  the  lords 
of  trade  recommended  the  disallowance  of  the  act.4  One 
of  the  king's  lawyers  had  reported  that  the  act  contained  in- 
novations, without  sufficiently  stating  the  inconvenience  of 
the  old  methods.  The  worthy  lords,  moreover,  were  of 
opinion,  that  the  neglect  of  the  assembly  to  urge  the  bill's 
approval  betokened  lack  of  argument  in  its  support.  Gov- 
ernor Franklin  in  communicating  this  disallowance  to  the 

'M  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  284. 

'Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  283. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  400.  *Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  199. 


256  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [256 

assembly  said  that  the  act  had  been  rendered  needless,  be- 
cause of  a  subsequent  act  of  the  legislature.1  The  measure 
to  which  the  governor  had  reference  was  passed  in  March, 
1770,  and  was  entitled  an  "  Act  to  provide  a  more  effectual 
Remedy  against  excessive  Costs  in  the  Recovery  of  Debts 
under  Fifty  Pounds  in  this  Colony ;  and  for  other  purposes 
therein  mentioned."  2  It  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of 
a  critical  period  in  the  history  of  the  judiciary. 

The  legislation  regarding  the  courts  up  to  this  time 
shows  that  the  subject  of  fees  and  legal  practises  had  long 
been  matters,  not  only  of  importance,  but  of  contention  be- 
tween the  different  branches  of  the  government.  After 
the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War  there  were  evidences  of  great 
prosperity,  followed,  however,  by  a  period  of  distress.  For 
years  lawyers  had  been  accused  of  lengthening  lawsuits  and 
making  legal  proceedings  expensive.  When  in  Governor 
Franklin's  administration,  owing  to  the  stringency  of  the 
times,  money  became  scarce,  debts  piled  up,  and  prosecu- 
tions increased,  the  people  redoubled  their  clamorous 
charges  against  the  courts  and  their  officers.3 

Numerous  charges  were  made  against  some  of  the  most 
respected  members  of  the  New  Jersey  Bar.  Bernardus 
Legrange,  having  been  accused  of  accepting  exorbitant  fees, 
was  ordered  to  appear  before  the  assembly.  The  house,  not- 
withstanding his  strong  defence,  declared  the  charges  sus- 
tained. Later,  however,  certificates  from  the  Supreme 
Court  justices  were  shown  declaring  that  the  accused  had 
not  taken  unwarrantable  fees,  and  Legrange  was  exon- 
erated. Bias,  because  of  the  popular  outcry,  may  have 
influenced  the  assembly  in  its  previous  resolution.     Samuel 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  241. 
"Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 
'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  164  et  seq. 


257]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  257 

Allinson  was   another  against  whom  groundless   charges 
were  made. 

Many  petitions  against  the  base  lawyers  were  pouring 
into  the  assembly.  On  October  24,  1769,  James  Kinsey, 
Samuel  Allinson,  and  John  Lawrence,  three  prominent  New 
Jersey  lawyers,  presented  a  memorial  to  the  lower  house 
which  was  an  able  defence  of  their  conduct.1  It  declared 
that  the  petitions  sent  to  the  assembly  were  all  so  similar 
that  they  doubtless  came  from  one  source.  Numerous 
debtors  implied  numerous  debts,  on  account  of  which  credi- 
tors had  the  right  to  expect  money.  The  indiscretion  of  the 
people,  not  the  laws  or  lawyers,  accounted  for  the  many 
financial  failures.  The  memorial  declared  that  the  sher- 
iffs were  guilty  of  oppression  for  they  were  not  obliged  to 
submit  their  bills  of  costs  for  taxation,  nor  file  them  in  any 
office,  as  was  the  case  with  the  lawyers.  They  then  pre- 
sented charges  against  Samuel  Tucker,  a  Hunterdon  County 
sheriff  who  had  been  elected  to  the  legislature  in  1769, 
and  submitted  what  they  regarded  as  evidence  of  his  having 
charged  exorbitant  fees  in  three  particular  cases.  The 
charges  were  especially  interesting  because  Tucker  had 
been  particularly  active  in  bringing  charges  against  the 
lawyers.2 

Tucker's  defence  was  insufficient  and  upon  investigation 
the  assembly  decided  that  in  at  least  two  of  the  cases  ex- 
cessive fees  had  been  charged.  The  house  came  to  two  reso- 
lutions, namely,  that  "  it  is  illegal,  a  high  misdemeanor,  and 
a  very  great  Grievance,"  for  officers  to  take  fees  other  than 
those  allowed  by  government,  and  that  Tucker  had  taken 
illegal  and  excessive  fees,  which  was  oppressive  and  a 
grievance.  No  further  action  was  taken  against  him,  how- 
ever. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  24,  1769.  ■  Ibid.,  Nov.  3,  1769. 


258  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [258 

The  discontent  became  so  pronounced  that  there  was  ser- 
ious rioting  in  Essex  and  Monmouth  Counties,  which  threat- 
ened to  stop  the  course  of  justice.  In  July,  1769,  an  attempt 
was  made  by  a  mob  of  malcontents  to  prevent  the  session  of 
the  County  Court  at  Freehold,  Monmouth  County.  Al- 
though unsuccessful  in  this  attempt,  they  later  accomplished 
their  purpose,  when  in  January,  1770,  the  lawyers  were 
driven  from  their  court  and  the  laws  set  at  naught.  There 
were  similar  riots  in  Essex  County,  where  also  the  burning 
of  considerable  property  belonging  to  the  prominent  law- 
yer, David  Ogden,  revealed  the  seriousness  of  the  situation. 
Ogden's  affairs  were  so  crippled  that  he  was  obliged  to  re- 
sign from  the  assembly.1  Action  against  the  rioters  in 
Monmouth  County  was  so  dilatory  and  half-hearted  that 
they  practically  escaped  punishment  for  their  misdeeds. 
Essex  County  showed  a  commendable  spirit  and  quickly 
tried,  convicted  and  punished  the  culprits. 

Impelled  by  the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  Governor 
Franklin  called  a  council  meeting,  directing  also  the  attend- 
ance of  the  sheriff  and  justices  who  were  present  at  the 
Monmouth  riot  in  January,  1770.2  The  assembly  was  also 
called  for  March  14th,  and  two  days  later  the  governor  ad- 
dressed a  long  message  to  them  upon  the  subject  of  the 
riots,  urging  firm  measures  to  cope  with  the  situation.3  The 
unjustifiable  methods  taken  by  the  people  to  redress  griev- 
ances were  denounced  in  strong  terms,  especially  after  the 
legislative  investigation  had  exonerated  the  lawyers.  In  the 
unwillingness  of  some  and  the  inability  of  others  to  pay 
their  debts,  the  governor  believed  lay  the  causes  of  the 
violence.  That  the  people  were  unreasonable  against  the 
lawyers,  Franklin  showed  by  citing  the  activities  of  the 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  pp.  149,  183.  i/did.,  p.  148. 

*Ibid.,  p.  172. 


259]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  259 

Monmouth  Grand  Jury.  After  uncommon  activity  on  the 
part  of  the  Grand  Jury  in  obtaining  evidence,  indictments 
only  to  the  amount  of  fifty  shillings  could  be  found  against 
them.  After  three  lawyers  were  indicted,  the  indictments 
of  two  were  easily  quashed,  the  third  not  being  at  the  time 
tried,  because  the  accused  was  sick.  The  governor  recom- 
mended acts  for  reviving  and  continuing  the  militia  law, 
for  better  preventing  tumults  and  riotous  assemblies,  for 
compelling  the  reparation  and  strengthening  of  prisons  and 
for  providing  a  sum  for  answering  contingent  and  extraor- 
dinary expenses  that  might  arise.  He  concluded  with  a 
warning  as  to  the  consequences  that  would  attend  the  con- 
tinuance of  anarchy  and  mob  rule. 

The  assembly  "  heartily  grieved  at  the  Occasion "  of 
their  meeting,  and  expressing  regret  for  the  errors  of  the 
"  deluded  People,"  set  to  work  to  enact  the  necessary  laws.1 
An  act  was  passed  to  revive  and  continue  the  process  of 
the  courts  of  Monmouth  County,2  as  also  acts  to  revive  and 
better  regulate  the  militia  of  the  colony,  and  to  prevent 
dangerous  tumults  and  riotous  assemblies.  The  governor 
was  also  asked  to  issue  a  proclamation  offering  £25  reward 
for  the  discovery  and  punishment  of  the  perpetrators  of  the 
Ogden  outrage.8  Franklin  immediately  issued  the  procla- 
mation, March  21,  1770,  offering  the  suggested  reward 
"  for  discovering  and  bringing  to  condign  Punishment  the 
Person  or  Persons  guilty  of  that  atrocious  and  Alarming 
villainy."  *  An  accomplice  who  aided  in  the  punishment 
of  any  of  his  associates  was  offered  the  royal  pardon. 

The  assembly  was  commendably  impartial  in  its  judg- 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  180. 
"Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 
1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  21,  1770. 
4N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  183. 


200  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [26o 

ments  in  this  matter.  They  asserted  their  belief  that  the 
best  remedy  against  any  abuses  from  the  lawyers  was  "  an 
honest  Care  to  fufil  Contracts;  and  a  patriotic  Spirit  of 
Frugality  and  Industry,"  but  to  quiet  any  popular  misgiv- 
ings and  prevent  future  outbreaks  it  seemed  to  them  that 
there  should  be  a  regulation  of  the  practise  of  the  law.1 
As  has  been  mentioned,  many  petitions  had  been  sent  to  the 
lower  house,  not  only  from  the  counties  where  disturbances 
had  occurred,  but  from  others  also.2  Some  of  the  petitions 
may  have  been  "  padded/'  as  was  charged  in  the  case  of 
those  emanating  from  the  storm  centers,  but  they  were  so 
numerous  as  to  show  widespread  dissatisfaction.  They 
were  similar  in  tone.  The  great  number  of  lawsuits  and  the 
high  charges  of  prosecution  were  the  grievances  which  the 
assembly  was  called  upon  to  remedy. 

After  considering  the  petitions  the  assembly  entered  into 
a  series  of  resolves,  which  show  their  earnest  desire  to 
denounce  the  riots  and  also  to  redress  any  grievances 
actually  existing.3  Declaring  their  desire  to  hear  grievances 
and  secure  their  redress,  they  characterized  the  riots  as  an 
insult  to  government  and  pledged  themselves  to  oppose 
such  attacks  upon  government  and  upon  private  property. 
The  resolute  conduct  of  the  Essex  County  magistrates  was 
commended,  and  it  was  at  this  time  that  the  governor  was 
asked  to  proclaim  the  offer  of  a  reward  for  the  persons 
guilty  in  the  Ogden  affair.  A  bill  was  ordered  to  shorten 
the  practise  of  the  law  and  regulate  the  recovery  of  debts 
between  £10  and  £50.  A  bill  for  this  purpose,  entitled  "  An 
Act  to  provide  a  more  effectual  Remedy  against  excessive 
Costs  in  the  Recovery  of  Debts  under  Fifty  Pounds  in  this 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  Ibid.,  p.  181. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  15-19,  1770. 

'  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  19,  1770. 


26l]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  26l 

Colony;  and  for  other  Purposes,"  was  passed.  The  gov- 
ernor expressed  doubts  as  to  the  efficacy  of  this  act  when 
tried,  but  it  was  allowed  by  the  royal  officials.1 

A  similar  act  had  been  rejected  by  Franklin  in  1769,  be- 
cause he  had  regarded  it  as  inadequate  and  injurious  to  the 
clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  a  royal  patentee.  He  had  also 
been  opposed  to  it,  because  it  had  no  suspending  clause,  and 
contained  certain  clauses  contradictory  to  an  act 2  at  the 
time  pending  the  royal  approval.  The  governor  gave  as  the 
condition  of  his  assent,  a  repeal  of  the  act  of  1765  and  the 
addition  of  a  suspending  clause  to  the  one  in  question.  Re- 
garding a  suspending  clause  to  a  five  year  bill  designed  as 
an  experiment  of  its  utility  as  inexpedient,  the  assembly 
had  asked  the  governor  to  obtain  the  permission  of  the 
crown  to  assent  to  such  a  bill  at  the  next  session.8  That 
such  assent  was  obtained  is  not  on  record,  and  it  is  doubt- 
less the  unusual  events  of  the  recent  months  that  led  Frank- 
lin to  assent  to  the  act  for  remedying  excessive  costs  in 
1770.  The  later  act,  however,  had  been  altered  to  meet  the 
governor's  chief  objections,  but  doubtless  did  not  prove  as 
satisfactory  as  was  expected.4  Allinson  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  print  it  in  his  collection  of  laws  in  1775,  for  it 
would  expire  at  the  next  assembly  session  and  "  there  is 
Reason  to  believe  it  will  not  be  revived  without  Altera- 
tion." 5 

Futile  attempts  were  made  to  secure  the  passage  of  other 
laws  during  this  agitation.  An  act  for  the  better  regulation 
of  the  admission  of  attorneys-at-law  progressed  only  as  far 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  108. 

"The  act  passed  in  1765  referred  to  above. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  6,  1769. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  193. 

6  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 


262  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [262 

as  its  second  reading,  in  December,  1769,  and  was  then  or- 
dered to  lie  on  the  table.1  One  to  explain  and  amend  a 
former  act  for  the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors  was  passed  in 
March,  1770,  but  was  disallowed  by  the  crown,  June  7, 
1 77 1.2  In  1772,  the  governor  refused  his  assent  to  an  act 
for  the  return  of  able  jurors  and  the  regulation  of  juries.3 
In  November,  1773,  a  second  attempt  to  pass  this  bill  was 
defeated  by  the  governor.4 

In  the  crisis  just  described,  the  abuses  and  evils  against 
which  the  people  complained  were  undoubtedly  grossly  ex- 
aggerated, but  this  made  the  dangers  to  government  none 
the  less  real.  A  lack  of  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  the 
courts  was  a  weakening  of  the  hands  of  government  in  a 
most  vital  spot.  The  base  motives  of  some,  added  to  the 
fancied  or  real  grievances  of  others,  encouraged  a  popular 
frenzy  that  was  alarming/  All  branches  of  the  provincial 
government  acted  with  commendable  promptness  and  zeal. 
The  activity  of  the  council  and  civil  magistrates  in  sup- 
pressing the  riots  was  commended  by  the  Earl  of  Hills- 
borough.6 The  bright  circumstance  during  this  period  was 
the  inability  of  the  complainants  to  substantiate  their  gen- 
eral and  sweeping  charges  against  the  New  Jersey  Bar. 

No  consideration  of  the  personnel  of  the  highest  court 
in  the  province  can  but  impress  one  with  the  variety  of 
duties  which  its  members  performed  in  the  public  service. 
The  early  justices  were  not  even  members  of  the  legal  pro- 
fession in  many  cases.  It  was  a  characteristic  of  the  period 
for  one  person  to  hold  numerous  offices  at  the  same  time, 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  1,  1769.  s Ibid.,  Mar.  27,  1770. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  330.  iIbid.,  p.  404. 

*It  may  be  noted  that  the  riots  occurred  in  anti-proprietary  sections. 
Many  lawyers  were  prominent  proprietors. 
6jV.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  198. 


263]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  263 

and  the  justices  were  no  exception.  As  a  study  of  the 
personnel  of  the  council  showed,  many  of  the  councillors 
were  also  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  This  combina- 
tion of  offices  was  strongly  objected  to  by  the  assembly, 
chiefly  because  the  council  acted  as  a  court  of  appeal,  and 
it  was  said  the  same  judge  might  sit  upon  a  case  twice.  The 
position  was  not  well  taken,  however,  for  a  royal  instruc- 
tion prevented  any  irregularity  on  that  account.  Despite 
the  many  complaints  because  of  the  meagre  income,  many 
of  the  ablest  persons  in  the  province  sat  on  the  Supreme 
Court  bench. 

At  the  beginning  of  Governor  Morris's  administration, 
Robert  Lettice  Hooper  was  chief  justice,  John  Hamilton 
second  judge,  and  Colonel  Coxe  third  judge.  Hooper  and 
Hamilton  have  been  previously  mentioned  as  members  of 
the  council.  Colonel  Daniel  Coxe  died  soon  after  Morris 
became  governor.1  He  was  a  holder  of  large  proprietary 
interests,  whose  early  connections  with  Cornbury  somewhat 
shadowed  his  active  career  in  New  Jersey  politics.  His 
appointment  to  the  Supreme  Court  came  in  1734.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  Governor  Morris  commissioned  his 
son,  Robert  Hunter  Morris,  as  chief  justice  to  succeed 
Hooper  in  1739. 

A  most  interesting  and  delicate  question  arose  during 
the  chief-justiceship  of  Morris.  During  the  year  1757  the 
chief  justice  made  a  visit  to  England,  and  in  his  absence 
William  Aynsley  was  appointed  to  his  place.  The  repre- 
sentation of  the  lords  of  trade  resulted  in  the  appointment 
of  Aynsley  "  in  the  room  of  Robert  Hunter  Morris,  Esqr. 
who  has  resigned."  2  This  was  the  mistake  that  brought 
about  a  most  unfortunate  controversy.  Morris  had  not  at 
this  time  resigned. 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  132. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  248. 


264  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [264 

In  1754,  however,  when  the  chief  justice  had  accepted 
the  appointment  as  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  he  had  sent 
his  resignation  to  the  lords  of  trade.1  This  resignation 
was  not  accepted,  or  at  least  Morris,  receiving  no  reply 
from  the  lords  of  trade,  accepted  their  silence  as  a  refusal 
to  allow  the  resignation.2  He  continued  as  governor  of 
Pennsylvania  only  two  years,  when,  upon  returning  to  New 
Jersey,  he  again  acted  as  chief  justice. 

The  explanation  of  the  appointment  of  Aynsley  is  that 
the  lords  of  trade  were,  in  February,  1757,  appointing  him 
to  the  position,  in  accordance  with  the  vacancy  created  by 
the  resignation  of  Morris  in  1754.  Dilatoriness  on  the  part 
of  the  royal  officials  in  colonial  affairs,  was  not  unusual, 
and  although  this  seems  an  extreme  case,  the  representa- 
tion of  the  lords  of  trade  had  as  its  object  simply  to  supply 
the  Morris  vacancy.3  The  appointment  of  Aynsley  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  due,  as  Judge  Field  suggests,  merely  to 
the  difficulties  attending  the  transition  from  Belcher  to  Ber- 
nard in  the  province.4 

During  Morris's  absence  in  England  in  1757,  Aynsley 
came  to  America,  and  began  his  duties  as  the  chief  justice 
in  1758.  Previous  to  that  his  mandamus  to  fill  the  office 
during  the  royal  pleasure  had  been  received  by  President 
Reading,  and  the  commission  had  been  published.5  The 
new  chief  justice  was  not  destined  to  fill  his  honored  posi- 
tion in  the  province  for  a  long  term.  He  died  early  in  July, 
1758,  his  death  occasioned,  according  to  Governor  Bernard, 
"  by  his  drinking  milk  and  water  when  he  was  Very  hot  on 

1  Field,  op.  tit.,  p.  149. 

*N.J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  206.  %Ibid.,  p.  231. 

4 Field,  op.  tit.,  p.  151. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  136. 


265]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  265 

Wednesday  last,"  his  death  having  occurred  the  day  follow- 
ing that  fatal  imbibing.1 

In  May  of  the  year  following,  one  Nathaniel  Jones  was  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  Aynsley  on  the  Supreme  Court  bench.2 
This  appointment  was  approved  on  May  31,  1759.  Mean- 
while, Morris  had  returned  to  New  Jersey  from  his  trip  to 
Europe  and  proposed  to  resume  the  chief- justiceship  under 
his  old  patent.  Bernard  was  in  a  quandary,  for  had  not 
Morris  been  replaced  by  another?  An  agreement  was 
reached  according  to  which  Morris  would  not  undertake  to 
resume  the  office  and  Bernard  would  appoint  no  one  to  suc- 
ceed Aynsley  until  the  royal  mandate  was  known.3  The 
royal  mandate  was  Jones's  appointment,  and  Bernard,  re- 
garding the  agreement  with  Morris  as  terminated,  asked 
the  royal  officials  to  advise  him  regarding  his  conduct,  if 
Morris  should  oppose  the  claim  of  Mr.  Jones.  The  lords 
asked  for  the  reasons  upon  which  Morris  based  his  conduct, 
instructing  Bernard  meanwhile  to  obey  the  king's  com- 
mands. 

The  former,  and  as  afterwards  transpired  the  then,  chief 
justice  frankly  stated  that  he  wished  the  office  because  he  had 
had  no  permission  to  resign.4  Lack  of  permission  he  re- 
garded as  a  prohibition.  Governor  Belcher,  even,  had  told 
him  that  the  two  offices,  that  of  chief  justice  of  New  Jersey 
and  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  were  not  incompatible.  In 
view  of  the  feeling  existing  between  Morris  and  Belcher  at 
that  time,  such  a  statement  would  certainly  be  proof  of  Gov- 
ernor Belcher's  charity.  Morris  added  with  modest  display 
that  it  was  not  the  income  the  office  afforded  which  prompted 
his  desire,  for  he  took  the  office  "  rather  to  prevent  it  falling 
into  Contempt  than  expecting  any  Support  from  it."     He 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  124.  *Ibid.,  p.  173. 

*Ibid.,  p.  176.  *Ibid.}  p.  206. 


266  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [266 

wished  that  the  office  should  "  always  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
Man  of  independent  fortune  and  Known  Integrity."  Gov- 
ernor Bernard  sent  Morris's  explanation  to  the  lords  of 
trade,  after  the  latter  had  promised  the  governor  not  to  in- 
terrupt Jones  in  assuming  the  office.1 

Despite  his  frank  confession  of  the  fact,  Morris  was,  of 
course,  a  man  well  suited  for  the  office  in  question,  and  of 
great  prestige  and  influence  in  the  province.  Whoever 
Nathaniel  Jones  was,  he  doubtless  was  inferior  to  Morris 
in  ability,  and  was  an  almost  absolute  stranger  to  the  peo- 
ple. It  is  true  that  he  had  been  given  a  flattering  reception 
at  Elizabethtown  in  November,  1759,  upon  his  arrival,  but 
the  people  of  that  community  were  doubtless  more  opposed 
to  Morris  than  they  were  in  favor  of  Jones.2  General  dis- 
satisfaction at  Jones's  appointment  was  expressed,  and  even 
the  governor  was  sceptical  of  his  ability  to  hold  the  office.3 

On  the  ground  that  he  could  not  resist  the  importunities 
of  the  people  to  accept  the  chief- justiceship,  Morris  took 
his  seat  in  the  Supreme  Court,  intimating  to  Bernard  that 
as  the  governor  was  about  to  leave  the  province,  Morris's 
promise  to  him  was  no  longer  binding.4  It  was  Bernard's 
opinion  that  the  promise  affected  Mr.  Jones  and  the  lords 
of  trade  also,  and  consequently  could  not  be  so  easily  re- 
jected but  Morris  could  not  to  advantage  believe  in  such  an 
interpretation. 

There  was  an  interesting  session  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
New  Jersey  held  at  Perth  Amboy,  March  18,  1760.5  Chief 
Justice  Morris,  and  Samuel  Nevill,  the  second  judge,  were 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  210. 

1  Morris  once  spoke  of  M  the  Absurdity,  to  say  no  more  of  his  (Jones's) 
behaviour  after  his  Arrival."    N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  236. 
SN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  211. 
'Ibid.,  p.  212.  5  Ibid.,  p.  214. 


267]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  267 

present.  The  king's  "  trusty  and  well  beloved  "  Nathaniel 
Jones  was  also  there.  He  offered  a  commission  dated  Nov. 
16,  1759,  appointing  him  chief  justice  and  asked  that  it  be 
read.  First,  however,  Morris's  commission  under  date  of 
1738  was  read.  It  frankly  stated  he  was  to  hold  the  posi- 
tion with  all  its  emoluments,  fees  and  perquisites  during  his 
good  behavior.  Jones's  commission  appointed  him  "  in  the 
room  of  William  Aynsley  Esqr.  deceas'd."  He  was  "  to 
have,  hold,  exercise  and  enjoy  the  said  office  "  during  the 
royal  pleasure ;  and  with  all  the  rights  and  profits  that  Ayns- 
ley had  enjoyed.  Request  was  made  by  Jones  that  the  oath 
of  office  be  administered  to  him.  At  his  request  certain 
entries  from  the  minutes  of  the.  court  were  read  to  show 
"  that  William  Aynsley  Esqr.  deceas'd  Satt  as  chief  justice." 
It  seemed  that  Mr.  Jones  had  confirmed  his  right  to  the 
position  for  which  he  held  the  royal  commission. 

Morris  naturally  declined  to  pronounce  judgment  in  the 
case  and  Nevill  delivered  the  opinion.  Morris's  commis- 
sion, the  court  decided,  gave  him  a  freehold  in  the  office, 
of  which  he  had  not  legally  been  divested.  The  oath 
could  not  be  administered  to  Jones,  but  he  might  prove  his 
right  to  the  office  by  due  course  of  law.  Thereupon  Morris 
requested  David  Ogden  and  Charles  Read  to  defend  any 
action  that  might  be  brought  against  him.  Against  the  de- 
cision of  Judge  Nevill,  Governor  Bernard  entered  a  public 
protest  in  the  king's  defence.1  The  lords  of  trade  urged 
the  king  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  attorney  general  for  his 
consideration  and  report  proper  measures  in  support  of  the 
king's  "  Right  of  Nomination  Against  the  extraordinary 
and  unprecedented  claim  of  Mr.  Morris."  2 

Upon  Governor  Boone's  arrival  in  the  province,  Morris 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  213.  'TfoVf.,  p.  232. 


268  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [268 

wrote  him  a  detailed  account  of  the  dispute.1  The  governor 
transmitted  it  to  the  lords  of  trade,  mentioning  that  Morris 
was  of  the  opinion  that  a  satisfactory  account  of  his  oppo- 
sition to  Jones  had  never  reached  them.  The  chief  justice 
could  have  no  ground  for  complaint  now  for  his  letter  was 
laid  before  the  king,2  who  was  asked  for  a  speedy  deter- 
mination of  an  affair  producing  confusion  in  the  colony, 
difficulty  to  the  governor  and  hardship  to  Jones.  Here  the 
case  ended;  Morris  keeping  his  office,  and  Jones  returning 
to  England. 

In  1762  Jones  petitioned  Hillsborough  for  the  chief - 
justiceship  of  South  Carolina,  which  was  then  vacant,  but 
in  vain.3  It  seems  an  unjust  fate  that  he  should  not  have 
been  thus  rewarded  for  the  hardships  he  had  suffered  by 
his  trip  to  the  Jerseys.  The  expenses  he  had  been  under  in 
that  venture  had  exhausted  his  resources  and  he  had  in  vain 
attempted  to  recover  his  lost  legal  practise.  A  remonstrance 
in  his  behalf  was  signed  by  four  judges  and  sent  to  the  Earl 
of  Halifax  in  January,  1762.4  They  were  "  really  con- 
cerned for  this  Poor  Gentleman/'  and  solicited  Halifax's 
favor  in  recommending  him  to  some  office  or  making  pro- 
vision for  him.  Five  years  later,  he  again  met  with  failure 
in  applying  for  the  chief -justiceship  of  New  York.5  In 
1768  he  made  application  to  Hillsborough  for  relief.  It  is 
difficult  to  appreciate  the  attitude  taken  by  the  home  gov- 
ernment in  his  case. 

The  commission  of  Robert  Hunter  Morris  was  during 
good  behavior.  The  difficulty  caused  by  that  commission 
was  doubtless  one  of  the  arguments  which  led  the  royal 

XN.  J.  A.y  vol.  ix,  p.  235.  '/did.,  p.  264. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  342.  *Ibid.,  p.  344- 

hN.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  vol.  viii,  p.  73. 


269]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  269 

authorities  to  issue  at  this  time  the  additional  instruction 
to  the  royal  governors  forbidding  judges  holding  commis- 
sions under  such  tenure. 

After  the  death  of  Coxe  and  the  resignation  of  Hamilton, 
there  seems  to  have  been  a  rather  long  interval  before  two 
associate  justices  were  appointed.  In  notifying  the  lords  of 
trade  of  Hamilton's  resignation,  Governor  Morris  men- 
tioned his  appointment  of  Joseph  Bonnell.  Morris  was  ex- 
pecting his  resignation  also  because  of  the  insufficient  salary 
of  the  associate  justiceship.1  Bonnell,  however,  accepted 
the  appointment.  The  governor  did  not  at  the  same  time 
appoint  a  successor  to  Coxe,  for  there  was  no  salary,  and 
he  was  debating  the  possibility  of  the  office  going  to  a 
Quaker. 

As  Robert  Hunter  Morris's  associates  on  the  bench  for 
the  greater  part  of  his  long  tenure,  Richard  Salter  and 
Samuel  Nevill  occupied  their  positions  with  ability.  Salter, 
a  councillor  at  the  time  of  his  appointment,  was  commis- 
sioned in  1754,  succeeding  Charles  Read.2  Nevill,  who  was 
at  various  times  speaker  of  the  assembly,  was  commissioned 
second  judge  in  1748. 

The  successor  of  Morris  as  chief  justice  was  Charles  Read 
who  had  been  an  associate  justice  before  1754,  when  he  re- 
signed, and  again  after  Salter's  death  in  1763.8  In  1763 
he  had  gone  on  circuit  for  Mr.  Nevill,  who  had  long  been 
"  rendered  incapable  of  Business  by  a  stroke  of  the  Palsy." 
He  had  officiated  as  chief  justice  for  but  a  few  months  when, 
in  October,  1764,  Frederick  Smyth  took  the  oaths.  There 
had  been  opposition  to  Read  as  chief  justice  and  this  may 
have  had  influence  in  England,  for  as  early  as  July,  1764, 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  48. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  340.  s  Ibid.,  p.  424- 


270  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [270 

Smyth  had  been  appointed  to  the  chief -justiceship  by  the 
king.1  Read  continued  to  act  as  second  judge  until  his 
death  in  1774,  when  Richard  Stockton  took  his  ploce  on  the 
bench.  Franklin  was  somewhat  in  doubt  as  to  Stockton's 
acceptance,  but  his  name  appears  in  the  support  bill  of  1774, 
with  a  salary  of  £i50.2 

Read's  appointment  as  chief  justice  created  a  vacancy  in 
the  court  to  which  John  Berrien  was  appointed,  with  the? 
advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  in  February,  1764.8  His 
commission  was  read  in  court  on  March  20,  1764.4  He 
was  a  gentleman  of  ordinary  ability,  with  a  loose  tongue. 
Smith,  the  historian,  regarded  him  as  "  a  babbling  County 
Surveyor,  not  fit  to  be  a  deputy  to  any  sheriff  in  England." 
Twice  during  his  incumbency  of  the  justiceship,  the  provin- 
cial council  was  bothered  by  complaints  against  him.  The 
chief  justice,  in  April,  1768,  complained  of  having  been  "  in 
several  instances  treated  with  great  indignity  by  Mr.  Ber- 
rien." 5  Upon  investigation  the  council  found  that  the 
manner  of  both  men  had  been  "  unbecoming  their  Stations," 
but  Berrien  was  more  deserving  of  censure  and  reprehen- 
sion. Both  were  recommended  to  behave  more  suitably  in 
future,  not  only  to  prevent  their  high  offices  from  being  dis- 
honored, but  also  to  prevent  "  recourse  to  Measures  that 
may  more  effectually  prevent  the  like  Complaint  for  the 
Future."  6 

Complaints  against  Berrien  did  not  come  singly,  for 
the  week  following  the  council's  report  on  his  controversy 
with  the  chief  justice,  the  governor  laid  before  the  council 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  446. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  21,  and  Mar.  2,  1774. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  374. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Mar.  20,  1764. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  500.  *Ibid.t  p.  506. 


271]  THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  2yi 

a  letter  which  Berrien  had  written  to  Cornelius  Low,  a  law- 
yer in  the  province.1  The  contents  of  the  letter  are  not 
known,  but  the  associate  justice  was  ordered  to  give  "  his 
Reasons  if  any  he  has,  for  writing  a  Letter  of  so  extra- 
ordinary a  nature  to  Mr.  Low."  2  After  that  there  is  no 
further  mention  of  the  case,  but  Berrien  held  his  position 
on  the  bench  until  his  death  in  1772.  The  complaints  made 
against  him  in  1768  do  not  seem  to  have  injured  his  popu- 
larity, for  in  the  following  year  he  was  elected  to  the  as- 
sembly from  Somerset  County.8  Berrien's  successor  was 
David  Ogden.* 

Mention  of  the  provincial  attorneys  general  may  well  be 
made  at  this  time.  They  were  commissioned  by  the  gov- 
ernor in  the  king's  name  and  to  hold  office  during  pleas- 
ure.5 Joseph  Warrell  held  this  office  from  1734  until  1754, 
when  he  asked  leave  to  resign  in  order  to  spend  the  re- 
mainder of  his  days  away  from  the  contentions  of  the  court- 
room. He  asked  that  Courtlandt  Skinner  should  be  ap- 
pointed in  his  place.8 

Skinner  was  appointed  and  held  office  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  colonial  period.  The  news  of  the  change 
in  this  office  had  evidently  not  reached  England  in  1761, 
or  else  it  was  a  clerical  error  which  at  that  time  led  to  the 
order  in  council  continuing  Joseph  Warrell  in  his  office  of 
attorney  general,  at  the  accession  of  George  III.7  Having 
studied  law  under  David  Ogden,  Skinner  was  well  qualified 
for  the '  position.  His  early  opposition  to  British  oppres- 
sion changed  as  the  Revolution  broke  out  and  he  supported 
the  British  cause.     As  speaker  of  the  assembly  previous 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  507.  *Ibid.,  p.  511. 

%Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  37.  'Ibid.,  p.  372. 

5 Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  450.  tIind.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  293. 

1Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  257. 


272  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [272 

mention  of  him  has  been  made.  His  conduct  as  attorney- 
general  gave  satisfaction  to  the  chief  executive.  Belcher 
hoped  he  would  not  be  supplanted  in  his  office,  for  he  was 
a  young  man  of  good  virtue  and  understanding.1  Boone 
regarded  his  conduct  as  irreproachable,  but  saw  little  or  no 
value  in  the  office  he  held.2 

During  the  early  years  of  royal  government  in  New  Jer- 
sey corruption  and  abuse  marked  the  course  of  so-called 
justice.  Credit  must  be  given  chiefly  to  Governor  Hunter 
for  loosening  the  grasp  which  the  corrupt  political  ring  of 
Cornbury's  administration  had  fastened  upon  the  judicial 
system.3  From  that  time  the  period  of  judicial  despotism 
in  New  Jersey  may  be  said  to  have  ended,  and  after  1738 
complaints  of  the  miscarriage  of  justice  became  com- 
paratively infrequent.  Exception  may  be  made  in  the  pro- 
prietary land  suits,  for  the  defendants  therein  clamored 
against  the  undue  proprietary  bias  of  the  courts.  Never- 
theless this  outcry  was  frequently  unreasoning  and  was  in- 
dulged in  from  ulterior  motives.  The  right  to  appeal  from 
the  Supreme  Court  to  the  council,  or  to  the  crown,  was 
rarely  exercised. 

The  minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  indicate  that  it  was 
not  unusual  for  cases  to  be  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court,  to  be  referred  to  the  determination  of  certain  per- 
sons appointed  for  the  purpose.  Notice  having  been  given 
to  the  parties  concerned,  the  referees  would  meet  at  a  desig- 
nated time  and  place  to  consider  the  case.  The  report  of  the 
referees  was  regarded  as  binding  upon  both  parties  and  was 
in  effect  a  judgment  of  the  court.* 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  200.  2 Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  279. 

"Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  480  et  seq. 

4 Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court,  April  10,  1773;  Thos.  Ricke  vs.  John 
Gill. 


CHAPTER  IX 
The  Financial  System 

In  the  pioneer  days  of  which  we  are  speaking,  not  the 
least  of  the  difficulties  of  government  was  caused  by  finan- 
cial affairs.  With  difficulty  do  we  think  ourselves  into  the 
conditions  of  that  early  period  and  realize  the  problems 
with  which  the  people  labored.  The  fact  that  very  little 
currency  circulated  among  that  scattering  population  made 
recourse  to  some  other  medium  of  exchange  necessary. 
Little  gold  and  silver  was  current  in  New  Jersey,  and  what 
little  there  was  is  said  to  have  come  into  the  hands  of 
farmers  near  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  through  sales  of 
wheat,  and  was  then  hoarded  for  the  purpose  of  making 
land  purchases.1  The  ordinary  medium  of  exchange  among 
the  colonists  was  bills  of  credit,  so  disadvantageous  because 
of  their  fluctuating  and  usually  deteriorated  values.2  Dur- 
ing the  later  colonial  period  the  expenses  of  government 
mounted  up  unusually  high  because  of  the  frequent  wars. 
It  is  of  course  true  that  these  expenditures  were  in  part,  at 
least,  repaid  by  the  mother  country.  The  now  familiar 
phrase,  the  high  cost  of  living,  was  uttered  with  great  regu- 
larity by  the  officials,  in  their  frequent  demands  for  higher 
salaries.  Questions  of  expenditures,  taxation,  and  the 
issues  of  the  bills  of  credit  will  necessarily  be  considered 
in  this  chapter. 

The  support  of  government  was  an  almost  annual  subject 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  166.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  53. 

273]  273 


274  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [274 

of  discussion,  and  frequently  of  contention,  in  the  history  of 
the  colony.  The  assembly  successfully  maintained  their 
demand  to  unrestricted  control  of  the  colonial  purse,  this 
demand  receiving  unwilling  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the 
governors  and  royal  authorities,  who  never  credited  the 
lower  house  with  the  legal  exercise  of  such  control.  The 
expense  of  government  was  either  paid  by  the  interest  of 
money  emitted  on  loan  or  by  funds  raised  annually  by  a  tax 
upon  real  and  personal  property.  Salaries  and  incidental 
charges  were  granted  annually,  being  issued  upon  a  war- 
rant of  the  governor,  with  advice  of  the  council  and  ac- 
counted for  by  the  two  treasurers  to  a  joint  committee  of 
both  houses  of  the  legislature.1  Thus  the  assembly  not  only 
initiated  all  money  bills,  but  also  had  partial  charge  of  the 
auditing  of  accounts. 

The  governors  were  especially  interested  in  increasing 
the  salaries,  and  in  having  the  support  of  government 
granted  for  as  long  a  term  as  possible.  In  both  of  these 
matters  the  assembly's  interests  usually  ran  counter  to  those 
of  the  governor.  Pretending  economy,  the  assembly  was 
reluctant  to  increase  salaries.  The  longer  the  term  for 
which  the  support  of  government  was  granted,  the  greater 
would  be  the  governor's  independence  upon  the  lower  house. 
This  was  fully  realized  and  action  was  taken  accordingly. 
The  pulse  of  an  administration  can  usually  be  felt  in  con- 
nection with  the  bill  for  the  support  of  government. 

The  general  character  of  one  of  the  so-called  support  bills 
can  best  be  shown  from  an  outline  of  its  contents.2  The 
preamble  would  state  that  the  support  was  voted  out  of 
"  Duty,  Loyalty  and  Gratitude  "  to  the  crown.  The  sal- 
aries of  the  different  officers  were  then  given,  and  the  method 

XN.  j.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  580. 

'Nevill,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  vol.  ii,  p.  287. 


275]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  275 

of  payment  described.  Provision  was  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  arrears  to  an  official's  executors,  in  case  of  his 
death  or  removal.  House  rent  for  the  governor  was  al- 
lowed, it  being  necessary  that  he  be  provided  "  with  a  House 
to  live  in,  until  one  shall  be  provided  for  that  Purpose." 
Sixty  pounds  was  allowed  for  this  purpose.  Separate  sec- 
tions contained  appropriations  for  circuit  courts,  payment 
of  councillors,  miscellaneous  items  to  various  persons  and 
the  pay  of  the  "  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives." 
It  was  designated  from  what  funds  the  charges  should  be 
paid,  or  if  necessary  how  the  money  should  be  raised. 

With  Governor  Morris's  uncompromising  disposition  it 
was  but  natural  that  the  branches  of  government  should 
frequently  be  at  odds  regarding  financial  affairs.  He  re- 
minded his  first  assembly  that  it  was  incumbent  upon  them 
to  make  ample  provision  for  the  government,  in  return  for 
the  king's  graciousness  in  granting  the  colony  a  separate 
governor.1  Nevertheless  the  assembly  and  council  became 
involved  in  the  altercation,  already  mentioned,  over  the 
question  of  altering  the  support  bill.  An  act  was  passed 
for  supporting  the  government  for  three  years,  but  it  was 
a  disappointment  to  the  governor,  who  regarded  it  as  fear- 
fully insufficient.2 

The  contest  over  the  bill  had  been  so  bitter  that  not  a 
perfectly  satisfactory  one  could  be  expected.  The  failure 
to  provide  for  the  incidental  charges  of  government  was 
certainly  a  defect,  but  the  bill  at  least  supported  govern- 
ment for  three  years.  Whether  the  salaries  were  too  scant 
or  not  depended  upon  the  point  of  view.  None  of  the 
salaries  were  changed  except  the  governor's,  which  was  in- 
creased from  £500  to  £1,000  and  house  rent.  The  earlier 
amount,   it  should  be  remembered,  was  paid  to  the  ap- 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  2.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  79. 


276  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [276 

pointee  who  acted  as  governor  of  New  York  also.  The 
chief  justice  received  £150,  while  the  two  associate  Supreme 
Court  justices,  the  attorney  general,  and  the  treasurers  re- 
ceived £40  each.1 

Morris  said  that  the  assembly  thought  they  had  done 
wonders,  but  in  his  opinion  the  officers  of  government  were 
so  "  scantily  provided  for  that  they  can  scarce  perform  the 
services  required  of  them."  2  The  lords  of  trade  sympa- 
thized with  Morris  because  the  people  were  no  more  grateful 
to  their  sovereign  "  for  His  Gracious  Condescension  to  their 
Request,  in  granting  them  a  Separate  Governor. " 3  It  is 
true  that  Morris  might  reasonably  have  expected  a  salary 
more  than  double  that  which  was  given  to  officials  who 
rarely  had  come  into  the  province,  and  troubled  themselves 
too  little  about  its  affairs. 

The  assembly  later  found  that  a  mistake  had  been  made 
in  omitting  the  provision  for  contingent  charges  from  the 
support  bill,  and  in  1740  a  bill  for  the  purpose  was  intro- 
duced. Opposition  to  it,  voiced  chiefly  by  the  governors 
son  in  the  council,  prevented  its  passage.  Young  Morris 
protested  because  it  empowered  the  assembly  to  appoint  the 
printers  of  the  laws,  it  did  not  make  suitable  provision  for 
the  proper  fulfilment  of  the  duties  of  the  clerk  of  the  coun- 
cil, it  made  no  provision  for  incidental  charges  arising  from 
unforeseen  accidents,  and  because  the  council  had  the  power 
to  "  amend,  alter,  or  begin  any  bill  for  the  disposition  of  the 
public  money."  4  Inasmuch  as  there  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  any  attempt  to  amend  this  particular  bill  in  the  council, 
Morris's  last  protest  was  simply  a  flaunt  at  the  assembly. 

x  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  in.    The  salary  of  the  chief  justice  was  later 
decreased  to  ^*ioo. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  68. 
8 Morris  Papers,  p.  48.  * N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  165. 


277]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  277 

The  bill  for  the  support  of  government  having  expired 
when  the  assembly  met  in  October,  1741,  the  governor 
urged  them  to  continue  the  support  and  remedy  their  former 
mistake  of  neglecting  to  provide  for  the  incidental  charges 
of  government.1  In  order  that  qualified  men  should  accept 
positions  the  officers  of  government  should  be  amply  paid. 
The  assembly  did  not  see  fit  to  increase  the  salaries,  how- 
ever, and  granted  the  support  for  only  one  year.  Morris 
was  not  discouraged,  and  flattered  himself  at  having  chosen 
"  the  softest  way  of  treating  them,"  meaning  that  he  was 
less  contentious  with  them  than  usual.2  He  had  hopes  of 
better  success  in  the  next  session.  At  the  next  session  he 
met  with  as  much  success,  but  no  more,  another  support  act 
being  passed  for  only  one  year.8 

In  the  session  beginning  in  October,  1743,  the  assembly 
and  governor  were  on  bad  terms,  but  the  support  bill  was 
as  usual  passed.  His  Excellency  again  reminded  the  repre- 
sentatives, that  they  had  promised  to  support  the  added 
expenses  of  the  government  when  they  had  a  separate  gov- 
ernor and  significantly  promised  his  assent  to  any  laws 
beneficial  to  the  public.4  What  piqued  the  governor  at  this 
session  was  that  the  assembly  postponed  sending  the  sup- 
port bill  to  him  for  his  signature,  until  they  were  positive 
no  further  business  was  to  be  transacted.  To  suffer  for 
their  conduct,  they  were  read  a  long  lecture  by  the  gov- 
ernor about  their  unwarranted  behavior.5  The  support  bill 
granted  the  usual  salaries  for  a  year. 

The  unusually  acute  situation  that  existed  in  the  legis- 
lative sessions  of  1745,  owing  to  the  assembly's  efforts  to 
pass  their  pet  measure  for  the  emission  of  £40,000  in  bills 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  200.  2  Morris  Papers,  p.  139. 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  pp.  246,  257.  4 Ibid.,  p.  279. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  315. 


278  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [278 

of  credit,  their  refusal  to  confer  with  the  council  on  the 
militia  bill,  and  their  order  to  print  the  fee  bill,  left  the  gov- 
ernment unsupported.1  With  frankness  the  assembly  asked 
the  governor  to  pass  their  bills  before  action  was  taken 
upon  the  support  bill.  Morris  took  this  as  a  threat  that  if 
he  refused  his  assent  to  the  bills,  "  they  would  not  support, 
or  as  they  call  it,  grant  a  support  for  the  government."  A 
support  bill  was  prepared  but  the  salaries  were  halved,  be- 
cause, as  the  assembly  resolved,  "  while  Things  remain  in 
this  Situation  the  Colony  is  not  in  a  Condition  to  support 
Government  so  largely  as  they  have  done  for  some  years 
past."  2  Of  course  the  council  refused  assent  to  such  a  bill, 
and  at  the  last  mention  of  it  in  the  records  it  was  under  the 
council's  consideration.3  This  method  threw  the  blame  for 
the  non-support  of  the  government  upon  the  governor  and 
council. 

The  governor's  complaint  to  the  lords  of  trade  was  drawn 
out  to  even  greater  length  than  usual.  The  encroachments 
of  assemblies  should  be  stopped  and  they  should  be  "  re- 
duced to  such  proper  and  legall  bounds  as  is  consistent  with 
his  Majestie's  Prerogative  and  their  dependance."  4  He 
suggested  that  all  money  in  future  raised  should  be  de- 
clared to  be  given  to  the  king,  to  be  by  him  applied  for  any 
use  and  in  any  manner  that  he  saw  fit.  The  king  was  to 
delegate  the  governor  with  the  advice  of  his  council  to 
direct  the  expenditures.  Morris,  as  a  royal  official,  had 
evidently  lost  the  ability  to  read  the  signs  of  the  times. 

In  1746  the  efforts  to  have  the  government  supported 
were  still  unsuccessful.     The  beginning  of  the  session  was 

1  Morris  Papers,  p.  213. 

* N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  372.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  373. 

*  Morris  Papers,  p.  225. 


279]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  2yg 

not  without  an  appearance  of  harmony,  and  gave  hope  that 
the  desired  end  might  be  accomplished.  In  a  brief  message, 
on  March  4th,  the  governor  remarked  that  it  was  unneces- 
sary to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  support  had  long 
since  expired.1  The  house  expressed  willingness  to  supply 
the  deficiency  and  pay  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  govern- 
ment.2 In  May  the  governor  promised  to  assent  to  the 
Militia  Act  and  the  act  for  bringing  actions  of  less  than 
£15  into  the  Supreme  Court,  if  support  would  be  granted 
to  the  government.8  Because  the  treasury  was  low,  re- 
plied the  assembly,  the  governor  would  be  given  £500  a 
year  for  two  years,  but  the  other  salaries  would  be  as  usual. 
An  inducement  of  £1,000  extra,  however,  was  offered  to 
the  governor  if  he  would  assent  to  the  act  for  the  emission 
of  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit,  and  it  should  receive  the  royal 
approval.4  Enraged,  the  governor  refused  to  pass  the  bills 
unless  the  government  was  supported  as  amply  as  here- 
tofore. There  was  no  possibility  of  agreement,  and  a  sup- 
port bill  was  not  passed.  This  was  the  last  contest  between 
Morris  and  the  legislature. 

Although  Governor  Belcher  boasted  that  holding  the  af- 
fection of  the  people  afforded  him  more  satisfaction  than 
a  "  bigger  Salary,"  5  he  continually  complained  of  his  in- 
sufficient remuneration.  He  characterized  the  assembly  as 
tolerably  honest  but  stingy.6  Contests  between  the  assembly 
and  council,  chiefly  growing  out  of  the  land  disturbances, 
and  the  methods  of  settling  the  tax  question  upon  the  sev- 
eral counties,  interfered  with  the  regular  support  of  govern- 
ment during  this  administration,  a  circumstance  which  was 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Mar.  4,  1746.  8  Ibid.,  May  6,  1746. 

*  Ibid.,  Mar.  II,  1746.  4  Assembly  Journal,  May  7,  1746. 

5  Belcher  Papers,  Mar.  14,  1748. 
* N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  106. 


28o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [28o 

Belcher's  misfortune  rather  than  his  fault.  In  1750  he 
urged  upon  the  members  of  his  family  in  New  England  to 
sell  some  of  his  property  there,  in  order  that  he  might  ob- 
tain subsistence.1  Miscreant  gossipers,  however,  had  told 
of  the  great  emoluments  of  his  office,  and  Belcher,  worried 
at  such  falsifications,  told  his  family  that  however  much  he 
might  wish  such  reports  to  be  true  "  they  are  false  and 
Vile."  2 

The  first  assembly  to  meet  Belcher  did  not  change  the 
amount  of  the  salaries.  The  support  bill  of  1748  provided 
for  but  one  year's  support,  although  Belcher  had  urged  a 
fixed  yearly  salary  suitable  to  the  dignity  of  the  office. 
This  was  of  course  refused,  the  assembly  declaring  the 
settlement  as  ample  as  formerly  and  telling  the  governor  to 
expect  nothing  more.3  This  bill  was  saved  from  defeat 
only  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  council's  claim  to  amend  a 
money  bill.  Disagreement  between  the  branches  of  the 
legislature  regarding  the  quotas  bill,  prevented  the  support 
of  government  in  1750.  All  the  governor's  entreaties  that 
the  assembly  should  take  the  next  best  method  to  support 
the  government,  if  it  could  not  be  done  in  the  way  they 
thought  best,  were  to  no  purpose,  and  the  assembly  was 
dissolved.4  In  this  respect,  at  least,  this  was  a  successful  ex- 
pedient, for  at  the  next  session,  a  two-year  support  act  was 
passed.5 

The  harmony  was  of  short  duration,  however,  for  the 
mooted  question  of  council  amendments  to  a  money  bill 
brought  disagreement.  Additional  friction  was  fostered 
by  the  new  claim  of  the  assembly  to  submit  acts  to  the  gov- 
ernor in  person,  even  after  the  concurrence  of  the  council 

1  Belcher  Papers,  Nov.  15,  1750.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  1,  1751. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  17,  1748. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  583.  %Ibid.,  p.  598. 


28 1]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  28l 

had  been  refused.1  Both  the  governor  and  the  council 
characterized  this  claim  as  irregular.2  That  proved  to  be 
the  last  disagreement  upon  this  subject  during  this  admin- 
istration, and  thereafter  annual  support  bills  were  regularly- 
passed. 

From  1 75 1  to  1757  the  province  was  spared  the  expense 
of  a  chief  justice,  because  of  Morris's  absence.  Nevill  per- 
formed the  extra  services  during  this  period,  and  in  Sep- 
tember, 1 75 1,  petitioned  the  assembly  for  the  first  time  for 
extra  recompense.3  Receiving  no  relief,  the  request  was 
repeated  in  January,  1752.  Thereupon,  he  was  allowed  six 
pounds  for  each  court  he  attended  during  the  absence  of  the 
chief  justice.4  During  this  period  the  officers  of  govern- 
ment, except  the  attorney  general,  were  gratified  with  no 
salary  increases.  The  attorney  general  suffered  a  ten-pound 
decrease. 

Government  was  supported  in  the  usual  way  during  the 
rapid  changes  of  the  next  three  administrations.  It  was 
customary  upon  the  accession  of  a  new  governor  to  allow 
him  £500  extra  to  aid  in  defraying  his  transportation  and 
other  expenses.  The  additional  amount  was  given  to  Ber- 
nard, but  when  Boone  succeeded  after  such  a  short  interval, 
it  was  only  the  affirmative  vote  of  the  speaker  that  saved 
the  sum  for  him. 

Although  Governor  Franklin  frankly  confessed  to  the 
lords  of  trade  that  he  had  no  hope  of  having  the  salaries 
settled  permanently,  he  urged  it  upon  his  first  assembly.5 
The  representatives  were  told  that  the  necessaries  of  life 
had  increased  threefold  in  the  last  seven  years  and  the  sal- 
aries were  inadequate.6    They  responded  to  the  cost  of  liv- 

1  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  332  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  625. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  17,  1751.  *  Ibid.,  Jan.  30,  1752. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  384.  6/taf.,  p.  384. 


282  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [282 

ing  argument  by  raising  the  governor's  salary  to  £1,200,  the 
chief  justice's  to  £150,  and  the  associate  justice's  to  £50. 
The  usual  extra  £500  for  expenses  in  taking  up  the  admin- 
istration was  refused  to  Franklin,  and  the  royal  instruction 
urging  permanent  salaries  was  ignored.  Scarcely  any  diffi- 
culty was  experienced  in  passing  the  support  bills  during 
this  administration,  but  demands  for  higher  salaries  were 
frequent  and  insistent,  even  if  to  no  effect. 

In  1765  the  inhabitants  of  certain  islands  in  the  Delaware 
River  petitioned  to  be  annexed  to  New  Jersey.  These 
islands,  being  outside  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  royal  courts, 
sheltered  many  malefactors,  which  circumstances  rendered 
the  holding  of  land  titles  there  insecure.1  For  the  protection 
of  their  land  titles  the  inhabitants  were  willing  to  pay  large 
quit  rents  to  the  crown.  Here  Franklin  saw  a  grand  op- 
portunity. The  quit  rents  might  be  sufficient  to  support  the 
entire  civil  establishment  of  the  province!  In  place  of  in- 
sufficient salaries,  and  dependence  upon  the  assembly,  Frank- 
lin had  visions  of  bountiful  salaries  and  freedom  from 
domineering  assemblies.  He  urged  upon  the  royal  Secre- 
tary of  State  the  annexation  of  the  islands  to  New  Jersey 
in  order  that  sufficient  revenue  might  be  had  for  the  in- 
crease of  salaries.2  Secretary  Conway  told  the  governor 
that  the  petition  of  the  possessors  of  the  islands  of  the  Dela- 
ware River  would  receive  the  consideration  due  its  im- 
portance.3 Doubtless  Franklin  thought  its  importance  was 
greatly  underestimated,  for  his  scheme  was  not  carried  into 
effect. 

In  1769  the  governor  was  unsuccessful  in  his  attempt  to 
have  the  assembly  appropriate  part  of  the  interest  money 
.of  the  bill  for  emitting  £100,000  in  bills  of  credit  in  order  to 
make  more  proper  provision  for  the  officers  of  gvernment.4 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  488.  'Ibid.,  p.  488. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  492.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  144. 


283]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  283 

The  assembly  might  be  brought  to  compliance,  Franklin 
told  the  royal  officials,  if  this  act  was  disallowed,  and  it 
was  specified  that  royal  assent  would  be  given  to  an  act 
which  set  aside  part  of  the  interest  money  for  the  support 
of  the  government  and  provided  for  each  officer. 

The  £  100,000  bill  of  1769  was  disallowed,  but  for  other 
reasons.  Undaunted,  the  governor  kept  recommending  sal- 
ary increases  with  commendable  patience.  In  1773  his 
suggestion  that  the  crown  might  pay  the  salaries  out  of 
royal  revenues,  thereby  lessening  the  dependence  of  the 
royal  officials  upon  the  lower  house,  ruffled  the  assembly  not 
at  all.  They  determined  to  cross  no  bridge  before  they 
came  to  it.  Despite  his  father's  disapproval  of  his  desire 
for  added  salary  as  likely  to  embroil  him  with  the  people, 
the  younger  Franklin  asked  Lord  Dartmouth,  in  1773, 
either  for  an  increase  in  salary  or  promotion  to  a  better 
government.1  Although  Dartmouth  promised  his  aid  in  the 
matter,  it  was  never  forthcoming.* 

The  governor  was  not  alone  in  requesting  added  com- 
pensation for  public  service,  during  this  period.  Chief 
Justice  Smyth  was  particularly  insistent.  Smyth  joined 
with  Franklin  in  asking  for  an  allowance  from  the  king's 
revenue,  in  order  to  be  more  independent  of  the  legisla- 
ture.8 In  1768  he  declared  that  he  had  continued  in  office  al- 
most wholly  at  his  private  expense,  but  had  continually  been 
expecting  a  salary  from  England.4  The  governor  recom- 
mended that  Smyth's  salary  be  increased,  and  the  chief 
justice  sent  a  memorial  to  the  assembly,  but  no  change  was 
made.5  In  1772  Smyth  was  allowed  a  salary  from  the 
crown,  and  ordered  to  accept  of  no  further  allowance  from 
the  assembly.* 

1  N.J.A.y  vol.  x,  p.  390,  note,  p.  393.  *  Ibid.,  p.  401. 

•  Ibid. ,  vol.  ix,  p.  489.  *  Ibid. ,  vol.  x,  p.  62. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  June  16,  1766.         *N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  361. 


284  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [284 

Attorney  General  Skinner  sent  a  memorial  to  Lord  Dart- 
mouth in  1772,  requesting  the  latter's  favor  in  obtaining  a 
royal  salary.1  For  eighteen  years  this  gentleman  had  been 
inadequately  compensated,  according  to  his  petition,  which 
was  seconded  also  by  the  governor.2  Attorneys  general 
in  other  colonies  had  been  the  recipients  of  salaries  from 
the  king,  and  Skinner  craved  a  like  favor.  During  the  re- 
maining years  of  the  colonial  establishment,  he  annually 
received  no  more  than  his  £30,  plus  fees. 

Requests  for  better  pay  were  repeated  down  to  the  end 
of  the  colonial  period.  In  1775  the  £100,000  act,  passed 
by  the  legislature  the  previous  year,  received  the  royal  ap- 
proval.3 As  a  return  for  this  favor,  the  king  urged  that 
the  government  be  more  liberally  supported  for  the  period 
of  the  existence  of  the  loan.  In  response  to  requests  from 
the  governor,  the  assembly  declared  it  not  beneficial  to 
grant  salaries  for  a  longer  period  than  usual,  and  inex- 
pedient to  erect  a  building  for  the  legislature.  The  usual 
support  only  was  granted.  Franklin  regretted  their  remiss- 
ness, and  promised  Dartmouth  to  allow  the  assembly  at 
their  next  session  an  opportunity  to  retrieve  for  past  ne- 
glect. But  there  was  not  another  session  of  the  royal  colo- 
nial legislature  of  New  Jersey.  The  last  appropriation  act 
had  provided  for  support  until  October,  1776,  but  the  royal 
government  in  New  Jersey  was  non-existent  months  before 
that  date. 

During  the  later  colonial  period  it  became  habit  with 
the  people  to  protest  that  their  regular  taxes  for  govern- 
ment were  burdensome.  This  was  ever  the  excuse  pleaded 
when  they  did  not  wish  to  grant  a  royal  requisition  for  the 
support  of  royal  troops.     Actually  the  taxes  were  small 

1N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  383.  *IHd.,  p.  389. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  22,  1775. 


285]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  285 

indeed,  and  the  methods  of  raising  them  simple.1  The 
amount  to  be  raised  for  the  support  of  government  at  no 
time  exceeded  £3,000  a  year,  and  was  levied  upon  property 
and  land.  Minimum  and  maximum  rates  were  prescribed 
for  different  properties,  between  which  limits  rates  might 
be  assessed  at  the  discretion  of  the  assessors. 

Ordering  that  taxes  should  be  "  assessed,  levied  and 
raised  on  the  several  Inhabitants  of  this  Colony,  for  the 
time  being,  their  Lands  and  Tenements,  Goods  and  Chat- 
tels," by  legislative  enactment  the  particular  classes  of  peo- 
ple and  property,  with  the  rates,  were  enumerated.2  In  one 
long  list,  without  division  or  proper  classification,  the  tax- 
able classes  were  given,  such  as  householders,  merchants 
and  shopkeepers,  saw-mills,  grist-mills,  fulling-mills,  fur- 
naces, forges,  glass-houses,  distilleries,  ferries,  single  men 
working  for  hire,  servants  and  slaves,  cattle,  and  particular 
kinds  of  vehicles,  "  wagons,  the  bodies  of  which  hang  on 
springs,"  being  separately  enumerated.  Profitable  tracts  of 
land  held  by  deed,  patent  or  survey  were  to  be  valued  at  the 
discretion  of  the  assessors,  the  minimum  and  maximum 
valuation  per  hundred  acres  varying  in  the  different  coun- 
ties. Acts  to  settle  the  quotas  were  passed  from  time  to 
time,  as  the  circumstances  of  the  colony  altered,  and,  as 
has  been  seen,  caused  much  contention  and  bitterness  be- 
tween council  and  assembly. 

During  this  period  the  methods  of  colonial  taxation  re- 
mained essentially  without  change.  In  each  county  there 
was  an  assessor  and  a  collector  for  raising  taxes.  The 
county  collector  received  the  money  raised  by  the  town  col- 
lectors, and  transmitted  it  to  the  provincial  treasurer,  or 

1  For  the  subject  of  taxes,  see  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  519  et  seq.\  Parker, 
Taxes  and  Money  in  New  Jersey  before  the  Revolution,  in  A^.  J.  Hist. 
Soc.  Proc.y  series  ii,  vol.  vii,  p.  150. 

'Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  317. 


286  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [286 

paid  it  according  to  the  directions  of  the  justices  and  free- 
holders if  it  was  for  county  purposes.1  In  1740  an  act  was 
passed  which  regulated  the  election  of  the  county  collectors. 
It  enabled  the  freeholders  in  conjunction  with  three  justices 
of  the  peace  to  choose  such  collectors,  and  required  the  per- 
sons elected  to  render  an  account  to  the  justices  and  free- 
holders upon  demand.  A  penalty  was  of  course  provided 
for  neglect  in  this  matter. 

Appeals  might  be  taken  by  any  who  felt  aggrieved  by 
an  assessment.  The  method  of  appeal  was  altered  by  an 
act  of  October,  1770.2  Jurisdiction  in  such  cases  was  no 
longer  to  be  held  by  justices  of  the  peace,  but  appeal  could 
be  taken  to  the  next  Court  of  General  Quarter  Sessions  of 
the  Peace  of  the  particular  county.  Judgments  of  this  court 
were  to  be  final.  The  former  method  of  appeal  had  been 
found  inconvenient  and  unsatisfactory. 

In  the  quotas  act  of  1769  there  was  provision  for  the 
taxation  of  "  Hawkers,  Pedlers,  or  petty  chapmen."  3  This 
was  in  accordance  with  an  act  for  the  purpose  passed 
in  July,  1740.  In  the  opinion  of  the  assembly,  these  stroll- 
ing merchants  reaped  a  harvest  without  contributing  any- 
thing to  the  revenue.  Most  of  the  venders  were  non-resi- 
dents. Peddlers  were  henceforth  to  be  required  to  pay  a  tax 
to  the  overseers  of  the  poor  in  each  county  in  which  they 
offered  their  wares  for  sale.  The  hawkers  were  graded  and 
taxed  accordingly,  if  traveling  with  a  cart  ten  shillings,  with 
a  horse  six  shillings,  on  foot  three  shillings  yearly.  The 
overseer's  receipt  was  in  effect  the  peddler's  license  to  do 
business.  The  money  received  was  to  be  applied  by  the 
overseer  for  the  relief  of  the  poor. 

The  people,  of  course,  had  other  public  obligations  to 

1  Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  115.  *Ibid.,  p.  341. 

9 Ibid.,  p.  112. 


287]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  287 

meet  aside  from  those  imposed  by  the  regular  act  for  pro- 
vincial support.  Although  these  were  for  county  or  local 
purposes,  they  were  nevertheless  levied  by  the  provincial 
assembly.  After  the  enactment  of  a  law,  to  meet  some  local 
need,  the  money  for  the  purpose  was  levied  in  the  usual 
manner,  and  expended  by  the  persons  authorized  by  the  act, 
frequently  the  justices  of  the  peace.  The  objects  for  which 
such  local  taxes  were  raised  included  the  laying-out  of  high- 
ways, the  building  of  jails  and  court-houses,  and  the  con- 
struction and  repairs  of  bridges.  The  inhabitants  were  also 
liable  for  a  slight  tax  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  of  the  com- 
munity. 

Somewhat  different  in  scope  and  purpose  were  measures 
which  laid  duties  upon  certain  articles  of  commerce.  As 
early  as  Hunter's  administration,  attempts  had  been  made 
by  means  of  export  duties  on  staves  to  preserve  timber.1 
In  1743  another  act  for  the  same  purpose  was  passed,  ap- 
plying to  East  Jersey.2  A  duty  was  laid  upon  logs  or  timber 
exported  to  any  of  the  other  colonies.  An  exception  was 
made,  however,  in  the  case  of  firewood  less  than  four  feet 
in  length.  The  early  act  imposing  a  duty  on  pipe  and  hogs- 
head staves  was  continued  throughout  the  colonial  period, 
but  was  altered  from  time  to  time.  It  was  finally  reenacted 
for  seven  years,  in  December,  1771,  with  increased  penal- 
ties, and  certain  modifications  in  the  judicial  procedure 
under  the  act  to  remedy  the  defects  shown  by  experience.8 
There  was  an  article  also  which  exempted  the  parties  to  the 
Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery  from  the  operation  of  the 
act. 

It  was  during  the  administration  of  Hunter  also  that  a 
duty  had  first  been  laid  upon  slaves  in  the  colony.4    After 

banner,  op.  cit.,  p.  532.  'Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  134. 

lIbid.,  p.  354-  *Ibid.,  p.  31. 


288  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [288 

the  expiration  of  this  early  act  in  1721,  except  for  un- 
successful attempts  under  Morris  to  pass  a  similar  meas- 
ure,1 the  subject  was  not  again  brought  before  the  legis- 
lature until  1 76 1.  A  bill  laying  a  duty  upon  the  importa- 
tion of  negroes  into  the  province  was  dropped  at  that  time 
after  it  had  passed  the  assembly,  because  it  conflicted  with 
one  of  Governor  Hardy's  instructions.2  In  September, 
1762,  after  sundry  amendments,  "  An  Act  for  laying  a  Duty 
upon  Negroes  and  Mulatto  slaves  imported  into  this  Pro- 
vince "  was  passed,  gaining  the  governor's  consent  only 
when  a  suspending  clause  was  added.8  This  measure  was 
peculiar  in  that  the  import  duty  in  the  eastern  division  was 
but  forty  shillings,  while  that  in  the  western  division  was 
six  pounds.4  This  divergence  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
New  York  had  a  low  import  duty  of  but  two*  pounds,  while 
Pennsylvania  had  a  high  ten-pound  tax  upon  all  slaves. 
While  the  lords  of  trade  had  no  objection  to  the  principle 
of  the  bill,  they  regarded  the  provisions  requiring  the  pay- 
ment of  the  duty  by  the  importer,  and  providing  for  a  re- 
servation of  part  of  the  duty  in  case  of  re-exportation  as 
incompatible  with  the  governor's  instructions.5  The  bill 
was  not  laid  before  the  King. 

The  objections  to  the  former  act  were  obviated  by  the 
"  Act  for  laying  a  Duty  on  the  Purchasers  of  Slaves  im- 
ported into  this  Colony,"  passed  in  November,  1769.6  A 
duty  of  fifteen  pounds,  proclamation  money,  for  each  slave 
was  imposed,  payable  within  ten  days  after  the  purchase. 
The  county  collectors  were  ordered  to  account  for  and  pay 
the  duties  to  the  provincial  treasurer,  and  all  fines  result- 

XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  pp.  30,  50,  343,  348. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  345.  sI6id.,  p.  382. 

*Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  253. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  447. 

•Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  315. 


289]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  289 

ing  from  the  act  were  to  be  applied  to  the  support  of  gov- 
ernment.   The  act  was  limited  to  ten  years. 

In  171 6  an  avowed  excise  tax  was  levied  but  this  meas- 
ure was  allowed  to  expire  at  the  end  of  the  five  year  limi- 
tation. To  gain  the  same  end,  the  taverns  were  more  care- 
fully regulated,  and  tavernkeepers  were  obliged  to  pay  a 
yearly  assessment  fee  in  return  for  their  license.1  By  an 
act  of  1743  a  duty  was  laid  upon  rum  and  wines  which 
were  not  imported  directly  from  the  British  West  Indies.2 
This  was  of  course  not  a  direct  excise  duty,  but  was  simply 
designed  to  encourage  the  importation  of  rum  from  the 
West  Indies. 

The  simple  conditions  under  which  the  people  of  that 
time  lived  made  the  development  of  any  elaborate  system  of 
taxation  as  unnecessary  as  it  was  impossible.  Their  con- 
scious and  evident  desire  was  to  distribute  the  burdens  of 
providing  for  the  public  expenditures  as  equably  as  pos- 
sible. Whatever  in  their  estimation  could  be  with  certainty 
and  propriety  taxed  was  assessed.  It  is  doubtless  true  that 
the  people  were  not  tax-burdened.  Governor  Franklin  be- 
lieved that  the  Jerseymen  had  less  cause  to  complain  of  ex- 
cessive taxation  than  almost  any  of  the  other  English  At- 
lantic coast  colonies. 

The  issue  of  bills  of  credit  is  a  subject  closely  related  to 
that  of  taxation.  The  colonists  well  knew  that  the  home 
authorities  looked  with  suspicion  upon  the  issuance  of  paper 
money,  but  they  excused  their  persistence  in  demanding 
permission  to  strike  bills  of  credit,  because  of  the  lack  of  a 
circulating  medium.  It  is  to  the  honor  of  New  Jersey  that, 
notwithstanding  the  enormous  sums,  which  were  issued  in 
paper  bills,  the  emissions  were  always  regularly  and  properly 
conducted. 

■Allinson,  op.  cil.,  p.  101.  */bid.,  p.  125. 


290  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [290 

In  1740  an  additional  instruction  was  sent  to  the  gov- 
ernors directing  that  the  act  of  the  sixth  of  Anne  "  for 
ascertaining  the  Rates  of  foreign  Coins  in  her  Majesty's 
Plantations  in  America  "  should  be  strictly  observed  and 
executed.1  Because  it  had  not  been  duly  observed  many 
illegal  practises  were  declared  to  have  grown  up.  The  gov- 
ernors were  further  ordered  to  pay  strict  obedience  to  a 
former  instruction  which  forbade  their  assent  to  any  act 
whereby  bills  of  credit  were  issued  in  lieu  of  money,  unless 
there  was  a  suspending  clause  to  the  act.  Governor  Morris 
announced  by  a  public  proclamation  in  January,  1 741,  that 
the  act  of  Anne  referred  to  in  the  additional  instruction 
would  be  punctually  and  strictly  enforced.2 

The  problem  was  difficult.  The  lords  of  trade  asked  the 
governors  to  prepare  statements  of  accounts  as  to  the  paper 
money,  and  to  give  their  opinions  upon  the  knotty  subject.3 
This  brought  few  results  and  the  lords  of  trade  confessed 
that  they  could  lay  no  adequate  proposition  before  the 
House  of  Commons  for  redeeming  the  bills  of  credit.  Gov- 
ernor Morris  sought  the  council's  advice  in  New  Jersey, 
but  they  had  observed  no  evil  consequences  of  paper  money 
in  their  colony,  and  promised  to  submit  to  any  remedy 
recommended  by  Parliament,  if  that  honorable  body  was 
convinced  of  the  existence  of  harmful  irregularities.4 

As  for  a  remedy  or  a  substitute  Governor  Morris  had  none. 
He  reported  at  length  to  the  lords  of  trade  upon  currency 
in  New  Jersey,  but  bluntly  wrote,  "  Where  Gold  and  Silver 
is  wanting  that  it  is  necessary  there  should  be  something  to 
pass  current  as  medium  of  trade  in  Lieu  of  it  seems  to  me 
evident."  5     Even  so,  the  lords  of  trade  hoped  for  a  day 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  94.  *Ibid.,  p.  117. 

%Ibid.,  p.  122.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  194. 

57bid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  137. 


291]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  29 1 

with  no  paper  bills  of  credit,  and  urged  Morris  to  care  for 
the  punctual  redemption  of  the  outstanding  bills.1 

In  July,  1740,  an  act  was  passed  making  £2,000  current 
in  bills  of  credit  to  provision  and  transport  troops  for  an  in- 
tended expedition  to  the  West  Indies,2  but  the  people  were 
sending  petitions  to  the  assembly  for  an  emission  to  relieve 
their  necessitous  condition.8  For  the  latter  purpose  a  bill 
was  introduced,  in  November,  1742,  for  striking  £40,000 
in  bills  of  credit.4  Governor  Morris,  however,  rejected  it, 
thereby  gaining  the  approbation  of  the  lords  of  trade,5  and 
retaining  the  enmity  of  the  colonists.  The  measure  again 
passed  the  assembly,  in  October,  1743,  but  was  tabled  in  the 
council.8 

It  was  in  the  following  year  that  the  lack  of  harmony 
between  the  branches  of  the  legislature  became  most  acute, 
and  the  council  rejected  some  of  the  assembly's  favorite 
measures,  among  them  another  bill  for  the  emission  of 
£40,000  in  paper  money.  The  lower  house  believed  that 
Morris  had  unduly  influenced  the  council,  but  the  governor 
protested  that  he  neither  directly  nor  indirectly  sought  to 
influence  any  councillor.7  Complaining  that  the  assembly 
had  resorted  to  the  tricky  subterfuge  of  declaring  the  in- 
tention, in  the  preamble  of  the  bill,  of  appropriating  part 
of  the  money  to  be  raised  for  building  a  house  for  the  gov- 
ernor and  for  the  assembly  and  council  meetings,  but  actu- 
ally making  no  appropriation  in  the  bill  for  these  laudable 
purposes,  the  council  opposed  the  measure.  Nor  was  this 
the  single  ground  of  opposition.     The  council  at  this  time, 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  241. 

*  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  120. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  May,  1740. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xv,  p.  253. 

iIdid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  142.  %Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  284. 

7  Morris  Papers,  p.  229. 


292  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [292 

with  its  membership  practically  the  same,  reversed  its 
former  position,  and  went  on  record  as  opposed  in  principle 
to  the  emission  of  bills  of  credit.1  Unreasonable  and  of 
fatal  consequence  to  the  people  were  such  emissions,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  council  at  this  time.  That  the  governor  did 
not  consciously  attempt  to  convert  any  of  the  members  of 
his  council  to  his  own  views  upon  this  subject  may  be  true, 
but  his  well-known  opposition  to  the  measure  and  the  acri- 
mony then  existing  between  the  branches  of  the  legislature, 
without  doubt  exerted  great  influence  upon  the  opinions  of 
the  upper  house. 

At  the  opening  of  the  session  in  April,  1745,  Morris 
censured  the  assembly  for  attempting  to  pass  a  paper  money 
bill,  while  an  act  was  pending  in  the  British  Parliament, 
which  if  passed,  would  affect  the  colonial  paper  currency.2 
The  assembly's  retort  was  that  inasmuch  as  their  bill  had 
a  suspending  clause  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  petition  to  the 
king.  The  act  of  Parliament  to  which  the  governor  re- 
ferred was  to  prevent  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  in  the 
colonies  to  be  legal  tender  in  payment  for  money.3  The 
assembly  resolved  unanimously  that  this  measure,  if  en- 
acted, would  not  only  be  an  encroachment  upon  the  funda- 
mental constitution  of  this  colony,  and  the  concessions  made 
to  the  first  settlers  thereof,  but  would  also  be  destructive 
of  the  "  liberties  and  properties  of  his  Majesty's  subjects."  * 
Partridge  was  ordered  to  oppose  it  vigorously. 

Petitions  were  again  sent  to  the  assembly  early  in  1746, 
urging  the  necessity  for  an  added  emission  of  paper  money, 
and  the  assembly  resolved  to  have  another  bill  introduced. 5 
An  inducement  of  £1,000  was  to  be  offered  to  the  governor 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  220.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  393. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1744.     KIbid.,  Nov.  9,  1744. 
hIbid.,  Mar.  12,  1746. 


293]  THE  FINA]*CIAL  SYSTEM  293 

for  his  assent,  provided  the  king's  assent  was  subsequently 
obtained.1  Mutual  suspicion  prevented  any  agreement  be- 
tween the  governor  and  assembly,  so  that  the  plan  failed. 

At  this  juncture  President  Hamilton  assumed  the  ad- 
ministration, owing  to  the  death  of  Governor  Morris.  Dur- 
ing Hamilton's  brief  administration,  £11,850  in  bills  of 
credit  was  raised  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  five  com- 
panies of  Jersey  men  in  the  Canadian  expedition.2  It  was 
confidently  expected  that  the  colony  would  be  reimbursed 
for  the  funds  thus  expended. 

But  willingness  to  contribute  to  the  supply  of  troops  for 
expeditions  against  the  enemy  increased  belief  in  New  Jer- 
sey in  the  justice  of  the  demand  for  more  paper  money. 
Partridge  petitioned  the  king  in  1746  that  in  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  newly-appointed  governor  there  should  be  an 
instruction  of  leave  for  passing  the  bill  to  emit  £40,000  in 
bills  of  credit.3  Inasmuch  as  the  New  Jersey  assembly  had 
not  formally  authorized  the  petition,  it  may  have  been  made 
at  the  request  of  Belcher,  who  had  not  at  the  time  sailed 
for  America.  The  fact  that  the  agent  did  not  have  specific 
authority  from  the  New  Jersey  legislature  was  given  by  the 
lords  of  trade  in  their  representation  to  the  king  as  the 
reason  for  not  complying  with  the  petition.4 

Belcher's  position  with  regard  to  the  striking  of  bills  of 
credit  was  different  from  that  of  his  predecessor,  and  when 
the  favorite  £40,000  act  was  brought  before  him  with  a  sus- 
pending clause  it  received  his  assent.5  He  urged  the  home 
authorities  to  confirm  it  because  the  New  Jersey  paper 
currency  had  been  superior  to  that  of  the  other  provinces 

1  Assembly  Journal,  May  7,  1746. 

'Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  147. 

•iV.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  361.  K  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  433. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  18,  1747. 


294  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [294 

and  the  treasury  was  empty.1  Representations  were  made 
against  the  bill  in  England,  and  the  governor  was  required 
to  send  over  an  exact  account  of  the  condition  of  paper 
money  in  New  Jersey.2  The  report  which  Belcher  sub- 
mitted showed  that  all  the  outstanding  bills  would  be  re- 
deemed by  1753,  only  half  of  the  last  emission,  that  of  1735, 
still  remaining  outstanding.3  Governed  by  the  same  wise 
and  successful  principles  as  the  last  act  of  emission,  the 
measure  now  submitted  was,  according  to  Belcher,  worthy 
of  confirmation.  No  amount  of  argument  on  the  part  of 
the  governor  could  overcome  the  hostility  of  the  English 
officials  to  paper  money,  in  addition  to  the  influence  of  Bel- 
cher's opponents  at  the  court.  The  act  was  accordingly  dis- 
allowed in  November,  1749.4 

Four  years  elapsed  before  the  paper  money  question  was 
again  seriously  considered.  In  response  to  a  suggestion 
from  the  governor,  the  assembly,  in  May,  1753,  appointed 
Messrs.  Wood,  Learning  and  Spicer,  a  committee  to  in- 
vestigate and  report  upon  the  condition  of  the  paper  money.5 
Their  opinion  was  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  a  further  emission.  No  dependence  could  be  placed 
upon  foreign  specie ;  the  balance  of  trade  was  in  favor  of  the 
British  merchants;  government  had  long  since  been  sup- 
ported by  public  taxes  from  public  funds ;  and  the  province 
groaned  under  a  heavy  debt.  With  paper  money  the  in- 
terest of  which  could  be  applied  to  the  public  relief,  the 
just  debts  could  be  discharged  with  the  foreign  specie, 
otherwise  hoarded.  The  argument,  too,  so  prominent  a 
decade  or  two  later,  was  advanced,  that  deprived  of  a  suffi- 
cient medium  of  exchange,  domestic  manufactures  would  be 

1  Belcher  Papers  ,  April  22,  1748. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  174.  *fbid.t  p.  246. 

4Allinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  172. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  May  23,  1753. 


295]  THE  FINAMCIAL  SYSTEM  295 

improved  and  developed  to  the  injury  of  British  merchants. 
This  report  was  a  clear  and  strong  statement  of  the  colonial 
viewpoint. 

Having  considered  this  report,  the  assembly  resolved  to 
petition  the  crown  for  a  new  emission  of  paper  money,  and 
to  redeem  the  outstanding  £15,302  in  bills  made  current 
during  the  late  war  by  levying  provincial  taxes.1  The  coun- 
cil refused  to  join  with  the  assembly  in  the  proposed  peti- 
tion.2 In  order  that  New  Jersey  might  redeem  the  bills  of 
credit  made  for  the  king's  service  in  the  late  war,  support 
the  government,  and  aid  the  merchants  themselves,  the  as- 
sembly asked  the  king  to  assent  to  a  £60,000  emission.3 

Admitting  that  a  moderate  quantity  of  such  bills,  properly 
secured,  would  be  advantageous  to  a  trading  community, 
the  lords  of  trade  recommended  a  royal  instruction  in  favor 
of  the  New  Jersey  petition,  provided  the  new  bills  should 
not  be  declared  a  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts,  and  that 
the  accruing  interest  should  be  appropriated  to  the  con- 
tingent services  of  the  government.4  An  insurrection  was 
accordingly  sent  to  the  governor,  conformable  to  the  lords' 
sentiments,  and  in  addition  forbidding  the  governor's  assent 
to  any  new  emission  until  the  bill  had  been  transmitted  for 
the  royal  approval.5 

New  Jersey  assemblies  had  ever  regarded  it  as  axiomatic 
that  bills  of  credit  were  useless,  if  they  could  not  pass  as 
legal  tender.  Their  opinion  was  not  changed  by  any  num- 
ber of  royal  instructions.  Even  the  council  now  believed 
that  the  bills  must  necessarily  be  lawful  tender  for  the  pay- 
ment of  debts.8    A  bill  was  accordingly  drafted  similar  to 

1  Assembly  Journal,  May  30,  June  21,  1753. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  407.  ■  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  183. 

'Ibid.,  pt.  i,  p.  196.  5 Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1754. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  487. 


296  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [296 

former  acts,  and  a  petition  prepared,  setting  forth  .that  if 
the  bills  were  not  a  legal  tender,  the  good  purposes  of  the 
measure  would  be  defeated.1  The  emission  was  for  £70,- 
000,  the  £10,000  in  excess  of  what  had  previously  been  re- 
quested, being  for  the  aid  of  the  neighboring  colonies  in 
the  contest  against  the  French. 

The  draft  of  this  bill  was  submitted  to  the  royal  authori- 
ties, who  were  urged  to  give  the  governor  authority  to 
assent  to  it,  if  passed.  Belcher  suggested  that  a  clause 
should  be  added  to  obligate  the  province  for  any  deficiency 
caused  by  the  depreciation  of  the  bills.2  In  a  lengthy 
memorial,  Partridge  urged  that  consent  be  given  to  the 
passage  of  the  measure.3  As  the  proposed  bill  violated  the 
recent  royal  instruction  in  the  two  most  essential  features, 
the  recommendation  of  the  lords  of  trade  was  improbable.4 
In  the  summer  of  1755,  Belcher  was  notified  that  the  bill 
was  inconsistent  with  the  royal  instruction,  and  could  not 
properly  be  approved.5 

Although  the  province  had  again  failed  to  obtain  finan- 
cial relief  upon  the  terms  that  were  desired,  during  the  next 
succeeding  years  there  were  numerous  emissions  to  provide 
for  the  expenses  of  the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War.  These 
emissions  were  all  made  conformable  to  the  act  of  the  6th  of 
Anne,  and  the  bills  were  to  be  legal  tender  only  to  the 
province.  The  assembly  had  refused  to  contribute  supplies 
with  which  to  resist  the  French  in  1754,  because  of  the  re- 
jection of  their  bills  of  credit  proposition,  but  with  the  out- 
break of  the  war  in  earnest,  with  splendid  zeal  they  fur- 
nished both  men  and  money.  In  rapid  succession  came  the 
emissions,  £15,000  in  April,   1755,   for  the  expedition  to 

• 
XN.  J.  A.,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii,  p.  14. 

*lbid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  72.  %Ibid.,  p.  95. 

4 Ibid.,  p.  100.  hIbid.,  p.  124. 


297]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  297 

Crown  Point,1  another  £15,000  in  August  of  the  same  year 
for  the  supply  of  Peter  Schuyler's  army,2  and  £10,000  in 
December  for  the  defence  of  the  frontiers.3  In  June,  1756, 
£17,500  was  made  current  for  the  further  supply  of  the 
troops  under  Colonel  Schuyler  and  the  defence  of  the  fron- 
tiers;4 in  March,  1757,  an  additional  £10,000, 6  and  in  Oc- 
tober, 1757,  a  bill  for  the  emission  of  £30,000  for  the  use  of 
the  king's  service  in  the  war  was  passed.6  A  seventh  emis- 
sion followed  in  April,  1758,  by  which  £50,000  was  ordered 
struck  to  augment  the  New  Jersey  regiment  to  one  thousand 
men  for  the  campaign  of  1758,  to  which  was  added  £10,000 
in  August  for  supporting  150  men  on  the  frontiers.7  To 
defray  the  expenses  of  a  thousand  men  in  1759,  a  £50,000 
emission  was  ordered,  and  in  1760  for  the  same  purpose 
£45,000. 8  Thus  within  five  years  there  had  been  ten  emis- 
sions and  a  total  of  £252,500  was  struck  in  bills  of  credit! 
By  subsequent  emissions  of  £25,000  in  1761,  £30,000  in 
1762,  £10,000  in  1763  and  £25,000  in  1764,  New  Jersey's 
grand  total  of  money  raised  for  the  war  was  £342,500. 

The  manner  in  which  the  particular  amounts  making  up 
this  large  sum  were  emitted  was  practically  the  same.  The 
tender  of  the  bills  was  declared  to  be  as  good  and  effectual 
in  law  as  any  other  current  coin  in  the  province.  Counter- 
feiting them  was  to  be  punishable  by  death.  The  quotas 
to  be  annually  assessed  were  of  course  prescribed,  as  also 
the  time  during  which  the  particular  emissions  were  to  be 
current  before  redemption.  Likewise,  the  details  regarding 
the  signing  and  printing  of  the  bills,  and  other  necessary 
matters  were  as  usual  given  in  the  bill. 

•Ncvill,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  32.  'Ibid.,  p.  50. 

1 Ibid.,  p.  75.  *  Ibid.,  p.  92. 

*Ibid.,  p.  118.  €Ibid.,  p.  146. 

T Ibid.,  pp.  175,  203.  %  Ibid.,  pp.  253,  279. 


298  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [298 

But  after  such  an  enthusiastic  and  rapid  expenditure  of 
money,  there  came  an  inevitable  aftermath.  With  every 
new  emission  the  taxes  for  the  future  years  increased.  The 
old  question  was  immediately  revived.  Should  the  govern- 
ment be  supported  by  taxes  levied  upon  the  properties  of 
the  colonists ;  or  should  more  bills  of  credit  be  loaned,  the 
interest  of  which  would  support  the  government?  The 
table  of  the  assembly  became  buried  with  petitions  praying 
the  emission  of  additional  paper  money.1  The  assembly  re- 
garded more  paper  money  as  the  remedy  which  would  alle- 
viate the  grievous  complaints  of  their  constituents,2  and 
passed  a  bill  for  the  emission  of  £1 00,000. 3 

Inasmuch  as  the  money  was  to  be  made  a  legal  tender 
and  the  assembly  refused  to  add  a  suspending  clause  to  the 
act,  even  a  far  less  cautious  governor  than  Franklin  would 
have  hesitated  to  sign  the  measure.  He  refused  his  assent 
because  it  did  not  conform  to  his  instructions.  But  even 
had  the  governor's  assent  been  obtained,  the  lords  of  trade 
would  have  effectually  blocked  the  bill.  At  this  time,  they 
were  more  opposed  than  formerly,  to  declaring  bills  of 
credit  a  legal  tender  in  the  colonies.  In  a  report  to  the 
king,  in  1764,  they  had  pronounced  this  idea  to  be  based 
upon  fraud,  and  suggested  that  all  resolutions  in  the  colo- 
nies making  such  bills  legal  tender  should  be  null  and  void.  * 

But  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  had  patience,  persever- 
ance and  an  evident  faith  that  in  some  way  they  would  ob- 
tain the  favor  of  a  paper  currency  bill  upon  their  own 
terms.  In  response  to  the  continued  petitioning  of  their 
constituents,  a  committee  of  both  houses  declared  a  new 
emission  to  be  necessary.  A  bill  for  striking  f  100,000  was 
passed  in  April,   1768,  but  failed  to  receive  the  assent  of 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1767,  1768.  tIbid.,  June  23,  1767. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  488.  KIbid.y  vol.  ix,  p.  405. 


299]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  299 

the  governor,  for  the  same  reason  that  governed  his  conduct 
the  year  before.1 

Franklin  acknowledged  the  possible  service  to  the  pro- 
vince that  would  attend  a  new  emission  and  in  behalf  of  the 
New  Jersey  council  asked  Secretary  of  State  Hillsborough, 
if  objection  would  be  entertained  to  his  assenting  to  a  £100,- 
000  emission  bill,  without  a  suspending  clause,  if  the  money 
were  not  declared  legal  tender  and  the  interest  should  be 
appropriated  to  public  purposes.2  But  only  if  a  draft  of 
the  bill  had  been  first  transmitted  for  the  king's  approval, 
or  had  a  suspending  clause,  was  the  governor's  assent  to  be 
given.8  In  order  to  facilitate  the  public  business,  Franklin, 
early  in  1769,  sent  a  draft  of  the  £100,000  act  to  England, 
that  any  alterations  might  be  suggested  before  the  next 
assembly  meeting.*  On  the  ground  that  the  act  implied 
that  the  money  was  to  be  legal  tender  the  measure  was  not 
to  be  recommended  for  the  king's  approbation.5 

Although  the  terms  of  the  home  authorities  were  re- 
garded as  unusually  severe,  the  legislature  of  the  colony 
hoped  to  devise  an  expedient,  whereby  the  benefits  of  the 
prospective  currency  might  in  their  estimation  overbalance 
the  inconveniences.8  The  device  agreed  upon  was  that  the 
bills  should  be  legal  tender  only  to  the  loan  offices  issuing 
them,  a  plan  which  had  been  adopted,  according  to  the  as- 
sembly, in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland.7  The  measure 
passed  at  the  November  session  of  1769  received  the  gov- 
ernor's assent,  and  its  defence  before  the  royal  authorities 
was  intrusted  to  Benjamin  Franklin,  the  provincial  agent 
at  the  court.8 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  23,  1768;  N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  48. 
%N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  49.  sIbid.,  p.  60.  'Ibid.,  p.  99. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  106.  6Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  43. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  200.  8 Ibid.,  p.  136. 


3<x>  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [300 

Having  substantially  qualified  their  position  in  regard  to 
the  bills,  and  provided  for  undoubtedly  proper  funds  for 
the  redemption  of  the  currency,  the  assembly  had  no  appre- 
hension regarding  the  fate  of  the  act.1  This  conviction 
was  strengthened  also,  because  the  governor  had  urged  the 
allowance  of  the  bill  as  the  best  obtainable,  even  though 
deficient  as  to  the  appropriation  of  the  interest  money.2 
When  notice  of  the  disallowance  of  this  act  was  received  in 
September,  1770,3  Franklin,  as  well  as  the  assembly,  was  dis- 
pleased, declaring  it  absurd  to  expect  persons  to  mortgage 
their  estates  to  loan  offices  for  money,  which  later  the  loan 
offices  could  not  be  forced  to  receive  again  in  discharge  of 
the  mortgages.4 

The  result  of  the  last  disallowance  of  their  loan  office  act 
was  to  effectually  discourage  the  assembly  from  attempting 
another  bill  for  some  time.5  In  1771  the  house  refused  to 
appropriate  money  for  the  supply  of  the  royal  troops,  and 
by  an  overwhelming  majority,6  an  attempt  to  draft  a  bill 
in  strict  compliance  with  the  royal  mandate  was  discoun- 
tenanced.7 Instead,  a  resolution  was  passed  that  bills  of 
credit  would  answer  no  good  purposes  unless  they  were 
legal  tender  to  the  loan  offices.  Many  petitions  were  re- 
ceived by  the  assembly  from  1771  until  1774  praying  for 
an  emission  of  paper  money  upon  loan,  but  it  was  not  until 
February  of  the  latter  year  that  action  was  again  taken  in 
favor  of  a  new  emission.8 

On  February  20,  1774,  in  a  committee  of  the  whole 
house,  the  assembly  resolved  by  a  vote  of  22  to  7,  that 

1  A"".  J,  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  136.  *Ibid.,  p.  150. 

8 Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  192.  *Ibid.,  vol.  x,  p.  200. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  200. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  18,  1771. 

7 Ibid.,  May  31,  1771.  %Ibid.,  1771-1774. 


3oi]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  301 

£100,000  should  be  emitted  in  bills  of  credit.1  The  gov- 
ernor, questioned  upon  the  subject,  declared  it  would  avail 
nothing  for  him  to  assent  to  a  measure  which  made  the  bills 
of  credit  legal  tender  to  the  loan  office  commissioners,  even 
though  a  suspending  clause  should  be  added,  for  it  would 
suffer  the  same  fate  as  previous  bills.2  The  governor  sug- 
gested the  expedient  of  allowing  the  bills  to  pass  as  legal 
tender  to  the  provincial  treasurers  for  the  discharge  of 
taxes,  in  accordance  with  a  then  recent  act  of  Parliament. 

Such  a  bill  was  accordingly  passed  in  March,  1774.3  Al- 
though the  interest  money  which  would  accrue  in  the  event 
of  the  confirmation  of  the  act  was  not  to  be  appropriated 
as  the  governor  and  council  had  desired,  Franklin  did  not 
think  proper  to  refuse  his  assent.4  An  order  in  council, 
under  date  of  February  20,  1775,  finally  fixed  the  stamp 
of  the  royal  approval  upon  the  measure  for  which  New  Jer- 
sey had  schemed  and  striven  so  long.5  Frank  and  unquali- 
fied approval  it  was  not.  The  bill  was  allowed,  on  the 
ground  that  paper  money,  when  forbidden  to  be  legal  tender, 
had  had  salutary  effects  in  the  colonies. 

That  the  act  had  provided  no  permanent  salaries  for  the 
civil  officers  of  government  during  the  existence  of  the  loan, 
but  provided  for  the  appropriation  of  the  interest  money  to 
the  support  of  government  by  future  acts  of  the  assembly, 
was  criticised  as  a  defect.  To  meet  this  objection  the  king 
was  urged  to  make  a  requisition  for  the  purpose  upon  the 
New  Jersey  assembly.  But  to  comply  with  such  a  recom- 
mendation the  assembly  was  particularly  disinclined,  and 
indeed,  the  Revolution  had  begun  before  the  legislature  was 
officially  notified  of  the  royal  allowance  of  the  £100,000  act.6 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  20,  1774.  *Ibid.,  May  2  and  3,  1774. 

*  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  419. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  461.  hIbid.,  p.  549. 

•  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  24,  1775. 


302  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [302 

The  paper  money  question  was  one  of  the  most  trouble- 
some to  the  royal  officials  at  home  and  in  the  colonies.  It 
was  a  pertinent  and  stubborn  fact  that  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  American  colonies  made  necessary  a  sufficient 
and  flexible  medium  of  exchange.  Despite  the  theoretical 
objections  to  the  method  chosen  to  accomplish  the  desired 
end,  the  temptation  became  overpowering  to  declare  emis- 
sion after  emission  in  order  to  lighten  the  burdens  of  taxa- 
tion. The  evils  of  a  paper  currency  were  minimized  in  New 
Jersey,  however,  by  the  careful  way  in  which  provision  was 
made  and  adhered  to  for  redeeming  the  bills  of  credit.  It 
was  this  fact  largely  which  made  the  residents  there  less 
able  to  appreciate  the  position  taken  by  the  home  govern- 
ment, and  which  made  them  so  insistent  for  relief  through 
resort  to  an  expedient  in  which  they  saw  only  good. 

The  New  Jersey  assembly  could  not  "  conceive  it  pos- 
sible for  any  Fund  to  be  of  a  more  fixed  and  determinate 
Value,"  than  the  land  security,  carefully  inspected  by  loan 
officers,  upon  which  the  emissions  were  based.1  "  Our 
Lands  are  daily  rising  in  worth,"  cried  the  colonists.  That 
was  true  for  many  years,  but  times  of  stress  came  then,  as 
now.  When  lands  decreased  in  value,  the  bills  of  credit  did 
also.  The  depreciation  of  Jersey  bills,  however,  was  less 
than  those  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.  In  1741  Gov- 
ernor Morris  wrote  "  that  the  bills  or  what  they  call  the 
Paper  Money  of  this  Province  have  not  only  retained  but 
encreas'd  their  Credit  being  now  12J/2  P  Cent  better  than 
those  of  the  neighboring  province  of  New  York."  2  Never- 
theless the  bills  did  fluctuate  in  value,  and  the  fact  that  the 
deterioration  was  less  than  in  other  provinces,  did  not  ob- 
viate the  fundamental  objections  of  the  lords  of  trade. 
Merchants  and  traders  were  losers  just  in  proportion  to  the 
sinking  credit  of  this  unstable  currency. 

lN.  J,  A.,  vol.  vii,  p.  27.  *Zbid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  135. 


303]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  303 

Aside  from  the  theoretical  objections  to  paper  money, 
the  London  authorities  naturally  opposed  the  practice  of 
supporting  the  civil  establishments  in  the  colonies  by  means 
of  the  interest  from  the  bills  of  credit.  This  was  a  preva- 
lent scheme  to  avoid  taxation.  In  so  far  as  the  Jerseymen 
attempted  to  escape  taxation  for  the  support  of  government 
by  resorting  to  the  emission  of  paper  money,  its  use  must 
be  especially  condemned.  The  obvious  danger  of  such  a 
practice  was  that  of  an  over-issue.  As  the  bills  were  regu- 
larly canceled  at  their  expiration,  those  outstanding  were 
insufficient  to  pay  the  expenses  of  government.  As  one  of 
the  documents  of  the  time  declared,  the  effect  of  continued 
emissions  upon  "  the  Body  Politic,  is  like  cold  water  to  a 
man  in  high  fever,  the  more  is  given  still  the  more  is  called 
for."  '  And  New  Jersey  was  no  exception  to  the  colonies 
that  wished  to  pay  the  salaries  and  other  charges  of  gov- 
ernment in  this  way.  "  Tis  17  years  since  any  Tax  was 
raised  on  the  People  for  Support  of  Government,"  Belcher 
informed  the  lords  of  trade  in  1749.2  Two  years  later  it 
was  found  necessary  to  raise  the  money  for  the  support  of 
government  by  a  tax  upon  real  and  personal  estates.  Dur- 
ing the  Fourth  Intercolonial  War  the  expense  of  govern- 
ment was  again  paid  by  the  interest  of  money  emitted  on 
loan.  This  practice  continued  until  about  1769,  when  the 
government  was  again  supported  by  annual  taxes.8  It  is 
thus  evident  that  for  only  two  brief  periods  between  1735 
and  1776  were  the  inhabitants  taxed  for  the  support  of  gov- 
ernment. When,  with  this  fact,  it  is  considered  that  there 
was  no  provincial  duty  or  excise,  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  colonists  were  tax-burdened,  as  was  their  frequent 
complaint. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  vi,  p.  226. 

iIbid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  246.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ix,  p.  580;  vol.  x,  p.  447. 


304  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [304 

Whatever  opposition  the  colonial  governors  showed  to 
the  emission  of  bills  of  credit,  was  due  to  respect  for  the 
letter  of  their  instructions,  and  not  to  a  desire  to  forbid 
the  emissions.  In  many  cases,  indeed,  denial  of  assent  to 
issues  of  paper  currency  presaged  the  assembly's  refusal  to 
vote  the  necessary  funds  for  the  support  of  the  civil  estab- 
lishment. The  three  leading  governors  of  New  Jersey  dur- 
ing this  period,  Morris,  Belcher  and  Franklin,  personally 
favored  a  reasonable  amount  of  paper  currency  in  the  col- 
ony, and  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  last  two,  urged  the  lords 
of  trade  to  allow  the  passage  of  credit  acts,  that  conflicted 
with  the  letter  of  their  instructions. 

The  opposition  to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  mother 
country  upon  the  paper  currency  legislation  in  the  colony, 
increased  as  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  parliamentary  tax- 
ation developed.  This  was  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that 
when  bills  of  credit  could  not  be  emitted,  taxes  were  neces- 
sarily increased.  The  opposition  of  the  home  government 
to  legal  tender  paper  currency  in  the  colonies  was  more 
consistent  and  resolute  in  the  later,  than  in  the  earlier,  colo- 
nial era.  All  the  colonies  including  New  Jersey,  whose 
emissions  were  doubtless  the  least  objectionable,  felt  the 
effect  of  this  vigorous  policy. 

After  the  paper  bills  of  credit  came  into  general  use, 
the  counterfeiting  evil  became  of  serious  importance.  Imi- 
tating foreign  coins  was  not  only  difficult,  because  of  the 
scarcity  of  metal,  but  the  danger  of  detection  was  increased, 
because  of  the  comparatively  small  amount  in  circulation. 
Counterfeiting  the  paper  bills  of  credit,  however,  was  less 
expensive  and  less  risky.  As  early  as  1727  it  was  found 
necessary  to  replace  bills  of  a  previous  issue  in  part  because 
several  thousand  pounds  of  the  earlier  issue  had  been  coun- 
terfeited.1 The  acts  of  emission  decreed  the  penalty  of 
^evill,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  146. 


305]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  ,  305 

death,  without  benefit  of  clergy,  for  altering  or  counterfeit- 
ing any  of  the  bills.  Notwithstanding  this  extreme  penalty 
counterfeiting  prevailed  to  an  unfortunate  extent.  In  1748, 
a  council  resolution  declared  that  if  a  jury  were  called  to 
hear  the  case  of  a  counterfeiter  in  Morris  County,  convic- 
tion would  be  impossible,  because  the  jury  itself  would 
include  either  some  guilty  of  the  same  crime  or  others  who 
were  relatives  of  the  accused! '  The  course  of  justice  was 
not  so  much  impaired  in  all  the  counties,  however,  because 
many  persons  suffered  the  extreme  punishment  for  their 
crimes. 

There  was  other  legislation  against  counterfeiting,  aside 
from  the  sections  in  the  acts  emitting  bills  of  credit.  The 
activities  of  the  counterfeiters  became  especially  bold  during 
the  violent  period  of  the  land  riots.  The  legislature  passed 
an  "  act  for  punishing  the  coiners  and  counterfeiters  of 
foreign  coin  passing  current ;  and  the  counterfeiters  of  bills 
of  credit  of  this  Province"  in  February,  1748.2  The  por- 
tion of  the  act  relating  to  foreign  coins  made  current  by 
lawful  authority  was  unquestioned,  but  the  king's  attorney 
general  objected  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  description  of 
foreign  coins  that  should  be  passed  by  common  consent  as 
full  satisfaction  for  debts,  the  penalty  for  the  counterfeit- 
ing of  which  was  also  death.3  The  act  was  accordingly 
disallowed.4 

The  preamble  of  an  act  passed  in  1766  recited  that  there 
was  no  New  Jersey  law  for  punishing  "  capitally  "  many 
evil-minded  persons  who  had  lately  come  into  the  province 
and  counterfeited  the  bills  of  credit  of  the  neighboring 
colonies. '     Situated  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 

lJV.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  48. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xv,  p.  570.  s Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  305. 

4Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  71.  *  Ibid.,  p.  287. 


306  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [306 

New  Jersey  was  a  convenient  and  natural  stamping-ground 
for  the  manufacture  of  valueless  money.  This  bill  of  1766 
was  designed  to  more  effectually  prevent  such  illicit  busi- 
ness. The  usual  penalty  was  decreed.  An  act  to  more  ef- 
fectually "  punish  the  counterfeiters  of  foreign  Gold  or 
Silver  Coin  "  current  in  the  colony  was  passed  in  March, 
1774.1  Under  this  law,  for  the  first  offence  the  miscreant 
might  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  be  treated  to  one  or  all 
of  the  following  punishments,  namely,  to  be  whipped^ 
branded  "  by  an  iron  sufficiently  hot  to  make  a  lasting 
mark,"  fined,  imprisoned,  pilloried  or  cropped.  The  penalty 
for  the  second  offence  was  death.  In  the  £100,000  act  of 
1774,  an  addition  was  made  to  the  regular  provision  that 
"  'Tis  Death  to  Counterfeit."  As  encouragement,  a  reward 
of  fifty  pounds  was  to  be  paid  to  any  person,  who  acting 
as  an  informer,  was  instrumental  in  securing  the  conviction 
of  a  counterfeiter.2 

Notwithstanding  the  heavy  penalties,  as  mentioned  above, 
New  Jersey  suffered  much  from  the  practices  of  the  coun- 
terfeiters. It  was  not  unusual  for  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette 
to  print  "  A  Caution  to  the  Public,"  because  of  the  issue 
of  counterfeit  Jersey  Bills.  The  "  Caution  "  would  explain 
the  variations  for  the  benefit  of  "  those  who  have  not  both 
sorts  to  look  at  together."  3  The  Pennsylvania  Journal  for 
July  28,  1748,  noticing  the  execution  of  Henry  Yager,  con- 
victed for  counterfeiting  New  Jersey  money,  reported  that 
"  the  Government  is  determined  to  exert  itself  in  detecting 
and  punishing  this  growing  Evil."  4 

Unfortunately  the  escape  of  ten  out  of  eleven  counter- 
feiters from  the  Morris  county  jail  in  October,  1748,  pro- 
voked a  quarrel  between  the  branches  of  the  government 

^llinson,  op.  tit.,  p.  441.  2  Ibid.,  p-435- 

8 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xii,  p.  242.  'Ibid.,  p.  469. 


307]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  307 

which  effectually  upset  any  stern  determination  to  check  the 
evil.1  The  prisoners  had  broken  jail  and  had  traveled  un- 
molested to  their  homes.  Believing  that  the  authority  of 
the  judges  should  be  strengthened,  Belcher  urged  the  legis- 
lature to  pass  a  law  for  that  purpose.2  Because  of  the  great 
number  of  counterfeiters  in  Morris  County,  the  council's 
plan  was  that  an  act  should  be  passed  to  enable  the  governor 
to  grant  commissions  for  bringing  counterfeiters  to  trial  in 
any  county,  upon  which  he,  with  the  advice  of  the  council, 
might  determine.3  They  did  vouchsafe  the  opinion,  how- 
ever, that  some  of  the  magistrates  and  judges  of  Morris 
County  were  lax.  The  assembly  declared  that  not  the  laws, 
but  the  officers  were  at  fault,  and  refused  to  pass  any  law 
providing  for  the  transfer  of  the  cases  to  other  counties.4 
Neither  house  had  a  monopoly  of  the  right  nor  was  either 
disposed  to  compromise,  and  no  agreement  could  be  reached. 

One  of  the  most  notorious  of  the  colonial  money-makers 
was  Samuel  Ford,  a  sleek  villain,  who  continued  his  law- 
less practises  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  for  many  years 
and  in  the  end  escaped  the  deserved  punishment  for  his 
crimes.6  He  had  perfected  himself  in  his  "  profession," 
by  association  with  some  of  the  famous  Dublin  crooks  of 
that  period.  Associated  with  him  in  his  ventures  were 
John  King  and  Joseph  Richardson,  who  had  visited  Ireland 
with  Ford.  The  Ford  "  mint "  was  in  the  thickest  of  a 
well-nigh  impassable  marsh,  near  his  Hanover,  Morris 
County,  home. 

In  July,  1773,  suspicions  were  directed  against  Ford,  and 
his    arrest    for    distributing    counterfeit    money    followed. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  82.  *IHd.,  p.  25. 

*fbid.,  p.  33-  4Ibid.,  p.  41. 

6  See  Sherman,  Morristown;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  Treasury  Rob* 
bery,  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  vol.  v,  p.  49. 


308  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [308 

After  spending  but  a  day  in  jail,  he  made  good  his  escape, 
aided  by  his  friend  John  King,  a  deputy  sheriff,  and  perhaps 
winked  at  by  Thomas  Kinney,  the  high  sheriff  of  Morris 
County.  Efforts  to  capture.  Ford  and  his  accomplice  Rich- 
ardson were  unavailing,  the  former,  it  is  said,  finally  settling 
in  Virginia,  under  the  name  of  Baldwin.  Charges  were 
presented  to  the  governor  against  Kinney  by  none  other 
than  King,  who  charged  the  high  sheriff  with  abetting 
Ford  in  his  escape.1  Although  the  council  believed  the 
charges  to  be  unsupported,  the  governor  was  advised  to 
prosecute  the  indictment  which  had  already  been  found 
against  Kinney  in  Morris  County.  The  attorney  general 
was  ordered  to  prosecute  the  case.2 

Bills  of  indictment  for  having  been  implicated  with  Ford 
were  later  brought  against  four  men  of  supposed  respecta- 
bility in  the  colony.  These  men  were  David  Reynolds, 
Samuel  Hays,  Benjamin  Cooper  and  Barnabas  Budd.  The 
reason  that  only  the  first  named  suffered  the  penalty  for 
his  crime,  must  be  related  in  connection  with  the  story  of  a 
crime  committed  in  1768,  the  solution  of  which  apparently 
baffled  the  efforts  of  the  provincial  officials. 

For  six  years  the  robbery  of  the  East  Jersey  treasury  had 
remained  an  unraveled  mystery.  The  home  of  Stephen 
Skinner,  the  East  Jersey  treasurer,  at  Perth  Amboy,  had 
been  robbed  of  £6,570  9s  4d  on  the  night  of  July  21,  1768. 
The  house  was  occupied  at  the  time,  but  the  thieves  worked 
with  such  ability  and  agility  that,  having  broken  open  the 
iron  chest,  they  escaped  with  the  money,  and  successfully 
eluded  all  attempts  to  apprehend  them.  In  a  proclamation 
of  July  26th,  a  reward  for  the  capture  of  the  robbers  was 
offered,  £50  to  be  paid  by  the  governor,  an  additional  £100 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  419. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  16,  1774. 


309]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  309 

by  Mr.  Skinner,  and  a  confessing  accomplice  would  be  en- 
titled to  the  king's  pardon.1  The  council  advised  that  the 
assistance  of  the  governors  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and 
Connecticut  be  asked,  and  that  an  express  be  hurried  along 
the  sea  coast.2  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  this  advice 
was  given  a  month  after  the  perpetration  of  the  crime. 

When  the  legislature  met,  in  October,  1769,  the  assem- 
blymen expressed  concern  that  the  robbers  had  not  been  dis- 
covered and  promised  to  give  their  best  attention  to  the 
affair.3  The  treasurer,  hoping  for  indulgence  for  his 
errors,  but  wishing  no  mercy  for  any  guilt,  submitted  his 
case  to  the  assembly.4  A  full  inquiry  into  the  robbery  was 
postponed  until  the  next  session,  after  a  declaration  was 
made  that  nothing  had  up  to  that  time  appeared  to  impeach 
the  character  of  the  treasurer.5 

At  the  session  in  October,  1770,  the  assembly  made  a 
searching  inquiry  into  the  matter.  Many  witnesses  were 
examined-  and  the  members  of  the  house  even  visited  the 
scene  of  the  robbery.  After  considering  the  evidence,  the 
house  resolved  that  the  money  was  taken  because  of  the 
"  want  of  that  Security  and  Care  that  was  necessary  to  keep 
it  in  Safety,"  and  the  treasurer's  request  that  the  amount 
stolen  be  allowed  him  was  denied.6  This  resolution  of  the 
assembly  impugned  the  treasurer,  although  no  evidence 
condemnatory  of  his  conduct  in  office  had  been  advanced. 

The  matter  rested  until  September,  1772,  when  Skinner, 
in  a  memorial  to  the  lower  house,  urged  that  the  evidence  be 
reconsidered,  on  the  ground  that  the  damaging  resolution  of 
1770  was  repugnant  to  the  declaration  of  1769,  that  the 
assembly  had  found  nothing  to  impeach  his  character.7    As 

x N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xvii,  p.  524.  *Ibid.,  p.  525. 

8 Ibid. ,  vol.  xviii,  p.  42.  4  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  29,  1769. 
6  Ibid.,  Nov.  29,  1769.  *  Ibid.,  Oct.  17,  1770. 

''Ibid.,  Sept.  9,  1772. 


310  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [310 

no  new  evidence  had  been  introduced,  the  assembly  denied 
the  request  for  a  re-hearing,  and  asked  the  governor  to 
join  with  them  in  some  method  for  compelling  the  treas- 
urer to  account  for  and  pay  to  the  colony  the  sum  stolen.1 
The  assembly  intimated  to  the  governor,  moreover,  that 
the  treasurer  should  have  been  removed  after  the  robbery.2 
This  attitude  of  the  lower  house  was  scarcely  consistent, 
and  its  position  hardly  tenable.  A  resolution  proposing  that 
the  treasurer  be  removed  had  previously  been  rejected  as 
unjust,  and  the  assembly  had  continued  to  vote  Skinner's 
salary.3  The  governor  pertinently  mentioned  these  facts 
and  promised  to  unite  with  the  house  upon  any  proper 
measures  whenever  they  were  suggested.  This  was  the 
beginning  of  a  long  and  bitter  quarrel  between  the  governor 
and  the  assembly,  which  effectually  stopped  legislation  for 
some  time. 

In  a  message  to  Franklin  on  September  18th,  he  was  re- 
quested by  the  assembly  to  remove  Skinner  and  join  with 
the  lower  house  in  a  law  to  authorize  a  newly-appointed 
treasurer  to  bring  suit  against  the  "  now  Treasurer  "  for 
the  treasury  deficiency,  because  he  was  negligent  in  his 
office!4  Disapproving  of  this  the  governor  was  asked  to 
submit  some  more  agreeable  method.  The  governor  prop- 
erly refused  to  remove  the  treasurer,  before  the  offence 
charged  against  him  had  teen  satisfactorily  proved.5 

Having  laid  the  matter  before  the  council  for  their  ad- 
vice, that  house,  on  September  20th,  advised  the  governor 
that  it  would  not  be  proper  to  remove  Skinner.6  In  ac- 
cordance with  their  further  advice,  he  recommended  to  the 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  10,  1772. 
tIbid.,  Sept.  12,  1772.  *fdid.t  Sept.  15,  1772. 

'Ibid.,  Sept.  18,  1772.  bIbid.,  Sept.  23,  1772. 

*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  294. 


3 1 1  ]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  3 1 1 

assembly  a  conference  committee  of  the  two  houses  to  de- 
liberate upon  the  matter.1  The  two  committees  met  but 
could  not  reach  an  agreement  at  this  session.2  That  they 
saw  no  reason  for  altering  their  former  opinion,  was  the 
answer  which  the  assembly  returned  to  the  governor,  and 
he  was  left  to  pursue  whatever  methods  he  desired.3 

At  this  juncture  Skinner  presented  a  memorial,  stating 
his  willingness  to  appear  in  a  suit  to  be  brought  against 
him  for  the  purposes  desired  by  the  assembly.  Having  de- 
cided that  his  removal  from  office  must  precede  any  action 
on  their  part,  they  refused  to  consider  the  proposal.4  In  a 
message  of  September  26th,  the  governor  stated  his  position 
admirably  but  with  little  effect  upon  the  stubborn  legis- 
lators. He  refused  to  remove  the  treasurer  because  of  a 
mere  opinion,  expressed  as  such,  by  the  house.  Only  when 
the  treasurer's  negligence  had  been  legally  determined  would 
it  be  just  to  cause  his  removal.  The  attorney  general,  being 
the  treasurer's  brother,  could  not  prosecute  the  case,  but 
the  governor  declared  himself  willing  to  appoint  for  that 
purpose  whomsoever  they  recommended.  But  if  the  as- 
sembly would  not  provide  for  the  expenses  of  the  suit,  it 
would  hang  fire,  and  the  blame  must  rest  upon  them.  Re- 
turning no  answer  to  this  message,  the  house,  having  wearied 
of  the  quarrel,  was  prorogued  at  its  own  request. 

It  was  during  the  interval  between  the  September,  1772, 
meeting  of  the  assembly  and  the  opening  of  the  next  session, 
in  November,  1773,  that  the  activities  of  the  Morris  County 
counterfeiters  were  revealed.  Reynolds,  the  only  member 
of  the  quartet  indicted  for  counterfeiting,  who  was  exe- 
cuted,  had  divulged  certain  information  connecting  Ford 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  339. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  23,  1772. 

*/bid.,  Sept.  25,  1772.  *Ibid.,  Sept.  26,  1772. 


312  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [*I2 

with  the  robbery  of  the  treasury.  Cooper,  Haynes  and 
Budd,  in  confessions  which  gained  for  them  freedom,  also 
made  statements  incriminating  Ford  in  connection  with  the 
robbery. 

Governor  Franklin  referred  to  the  treasury  theft  as  hav- 
ing been  brought  to  light,  when  he  addressed  the  legis- 
lature at  the  opening  of  the  session  in  1773,  and  urged  that 
he  be  enabled  to  send  proper  persons  on  an  expedition  to 
capture  the  robbers.1  The  assembly,  not  inclined  to  act  in 
concert  with  the  governor,  recommended  that  rewards  of 
£300  each  be  offered  for  the  apprehension  of  Ford  and 
Richardson,  and  £50  for  King.  Although  the  governor  had 
laid  before  the  house  the  confessions  and  examinations 
taken  in  connection  with  the  affair,  the  assembly  inquired 
the  reasons  for  his  belief  that  the  mystery  of  the  robbery 
had  been  solved.2 

As  firm  as  was  the  governor  in  his  attitude  toward  Skin- 
ner, so  resolute  also  was  the  assembly  that  the  East  Jersey 
treasurer  should  be  removed.  The  governor  in  a  long 
and  careful  message  to  the  lower  house  detailed  the  reasons 
for  his  opinion.  The  assembly  was  inclined  to  scepticism 
regarding  the  confessions,  because  they  had  the  appearance 
of  having  been  extorted  from  the  convicts  by  means  of  the 
"  third  degree."  3  The  governor's  position  was,  briefly,  that 
credence  could  properly  be  given  to  those  confessions  where 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  12,  1773.  7Ibid.y  Nov.  16,  1773. 

3  From  the  account  of  Justice  Ogden,  before  whom  the  second  confes- 
sion of  Cooper  was  taken,  we  must  conclude  that  the  "third  degree" 
was  administered.  The  sheriff  was  ordered  to  take  off  Cooper's  irons 
and  pinion  him,  as  if  he  was  about  to  be  hanged.  The  sheriff  was  then 
ordered  to  take  the  rope  in  his  hands,  tell  Cooper  he  was  sorry  he  had 
to  do  his  duty,  and  must  take  him  out.  The  rope  was  then  coiled  and 
moved  by  the  sheriff.  It  is  reported  that  at  this  point  "Cooper  was 
frightened,  knew  more  and  would  confess  it."  Therefore  he  confessed 
that  Sam  Ford  had  robbed  the  East  Jersey  Treasury. 


313]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  3 1 3 

they  were  not  repugnant  to  credible  evidence,  and,  that 
while  there  was  positive  and  circumstantial  evidence  to 
prove  that  Ford  was  concerned  in  the  robbery,  there  was 
nothing  to  prove  the  contrary.1 

Meanwhile,  Skinner  again  memorialized  the  assembly  to 
the  effect  that  he  was  anxious  for  some  settlement  and 
would  agree  to  any  method  which  was  not  over-prejudicial 
to  him.2  The  house  having  ignored  his  former  memorial, 
on  December  17,  1773,  he  urged  that  a  suit  at  law  be 
brought,  and  promised  to  resign  if  the  verdict  should  be 
against  him.  The  assembly  was  unalterably  opposed  to 
Skinner.  It  was  believed  by  some  that  the  controversy  was 
but  the  cloak  to  conceal  their  real  plan  to  insist  that  the  ap- 
pointment and  removal  of  the  treasurers  should  be  by  them 
alone.  James  Kinsey,  from  Burlington  County,  was  one  of 
the  leaders  against  the  governor  in  this  matter,  and  is  said 
to  have  declared  that  the  treasurer  would  have  been  liable 
had  lightning  blasted  the  treasury.8 

On  December  18th  the  assembly  made  a  formal  report  to 
the  governor  of  their  position.4  The  report  was  doubt- 
less penned  by  Kinsey.  It  was  a  lengthy  argument  in  favor 
of  their  position  that  the  confessions  could  not  be  regarded 
as  credible.  In  this,  however,  they  were  grossly  incon- 
sistent, for  it  was  admitted  that  Cooper's  confession  had 
been  of  great  service  against  the  counterfeiters.  Admitting 
that  the  money  was  stolen,  they  still  regarded  the  treasurer 
liable  at  law.  Because  removal  was  prerequisite  to  the 
institution  of  a  suit  at  law,  Skinner's  removal  was  requested. 
The  council  did  not  hold  this  opinion,  however,  and  unani- 
mously advised  the  governor,  that  removal  was  not  neces- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  29,  1773.  2Idid.,  Dec.  6,  1773. 

8 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  x,  p.  414. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  13,  1773. 


314  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [314 

sary  to  the  institution  of  a.  legal  suit  against  the  treasurer.1 
The  assembly  held  to  the  belief  that  the  public  should  bring 
suit  and  not  confide  simply  in  Skinner's  promise  to  resign, 
if  the  verdict  was  against  him.2 

During  this  dispute^  the  wheels  of  government  had  been 
stopped.  From  arguments  the  assembly  turned  to  threats, 
and,  in  February,  1774,  flatly  informed  the  governor  that 
the  fate  of  the  bills  for  the  support  of  government  and  for 
the  supply  of  the  barracks  depended  upon  his  decision  re- 
garding Skinner's  removal.3  But  the  people  themselves 
now  sought  to  influence  directly  by  means  of  petitions  the 
determination  of  the  question,  which  had  developed  into  an 
expensive  and  fruitless  debate.4  The  first  petition  that  came 
to  the  assembly  early  in  February  urged  that  Skinner 
should  be  removed  and  then  prosecuted,  one  from  Burling- 
ton County,  even  suggesting  that  if  the  governor  persisted 
in  his  position,  that  the  assembly  should  petition  the  king. 
The  tide  turned,  however,  and  later  petitions  cried  out 
against  the  injustice  of  condemning  a  person  before  he  had 
been  tried  by  his  peers,  which  a  removal  before  conviction 
would  seem  to  indicate.  There  was  much  zeal  displayed  for 
"  that  most  valuable  Privilege  of  the  Subject,  to  wit,  a 
Trial  by  his  Peers." 

But  regardless  of  petitions,  each  side  remained  firm. 
The  governor  was  doubtless  right  in  his  position,  and  a 
master  of  argumentation,  he  riddled  the  arguments  of  the 
assembly,  turning  some  into  boomerangs  against  them.5  The 
assembly,  at  a  loss  to  refute  Franklin,  and  unwilling  to  be 
convinced,  on  February  16,  1774,  went  on  record  as  believ- 
ing that  the  affair  still  remained  "  in  an  obscurity  which  we 

1 N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  375. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  21,  1773.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  9,  1774. 

4 Ibid.,  Feb.,  1774.  6 Ibid.,  Feb.  14,  1774. 


315]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  315 

must  leave  to  Time  to  unravel."  Skinner  again  requested 
a  settlement  by  legal  suit,  and  in  addition  asserted  his  will- 
ingness to  give  any  security  that  could  reasonably  be  asked 
of  him.1  The  satisfaction  which  the  treasurer  obtained  was 
to  be  told  to  resign  if  he  wished  a  trial. 

By  a  vote  of  19  to  7,  the  house  entered  into  seven  resolves 
on  February  19th.2  The  treasurer  was  declared  guilty  of 
remissness  in  keeping  the  money ;  he  should  not  be  entrusted 
with  its  care;  the  assembly  could  consent  to  no  law  in- 
trusting funds  to  him;  Skinner's  continuance  in  office  was 
unsatisfactory  to  the  people;  the  treasurer's  negligence  and 
the  dissatisfaction  of  the  people  were  sufficient  reasons  for 
removal ;  any  ill  consequences  or  damage  resulting  from  his 
continuance  in  office,  should  be  placed  against  those  who 
continue  him  in  his  position;  and,  the  king  should  be  peti- 
tioned for  redress. 

The  quarrel  gave  every  evidence  of  being  interminable, 
when  Skinner  voluntarily  resigned  on  February  22d.  The 
previous  day  the  assembly  had  asked  Franklin  to  ap- 
point some  proper  person  for  receiving  the  taxes  for  the 
ensuing  year  in  East  Jersey.3  The  governor  having  re- 
vealed this  request  to  Skinner,  the  treasurer  resigned  and 
John  Smyth  was  appointed  to  succeed  him.4  His  resigna- 
tion is  an  interesting  document,  setting  forth  his  anguish 
and  mortification  during  the  recent  trouble,  but  his  deter- 
mination that  the  public  interest  should  no  longer  be  put  in 
competition  with  his  individual  interest. 

A  bill  was  immediately  introduced  to  authorize  the  new 
treasurer  to  bring  an  action  against  Skinner  for  the  amount 

1  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  17,  1774. 

■  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  19,  1774.    The  first  resolution  was  carried 
by  a  vote  of  21  to  5. 
8  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  21,  1774.  *Ibid.,  Feb.  24,  1774. 


316  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [?>l6 

stolen.  The  governor  did  not  agree  with  the  method  pur- 
sued by  the  assembly  according  to  the  act,  and  offered  to 
refuse  his  assent  if  Skinner  so  desired.1  The  latter,  trust- 
ing in  the  justice  of  the  legislature,  interposed  no  objection 
and  the  bill  was  passed.2  By  the  law,  Smyth  was  ordered 
to  sue  for  the  money,  if  Skinner  refused  to  pay  £6,570  9s. 
4d.  upon  demand.  John  Wetherill,  James  Kinsey  and  Rob- 
ert Price,  or  their  survivors,  were  appointed  managers  of 
the  suit  and  were  authorized  to  draw  a  sum  not  to  exceed 
£200  from  the  treasury  for  its  prosecution.  The  judge  and 
jurors  were  declared  exempt  from  the  payment  of  taxes 
raised  on  account  of  the  suit. 

The  measure  did  not  pass,  however,  without  the  exhi- 
bition of  ill-humor  between  the  houses  of  the  legislature. 
In  sending  this  act  to  the  council,  the  assembly  urged  that 
it  be  given  speedy  consideration.  The  council  with  sen- 
sitive dignity  and  wounded  pride  hoped  that  the  assembly 
did  "  not  mean  to  convey  an  Idea  that  this  House  would 
not  bestow  an  early  and  sufficient  Attention  to  the  Bill  as 
the  Importance  of  it  should  require,  without  being  then  put 
in  mind  of  their  Duty."  3 

Meanwhile  the  bad  humor  of  the  assembly  had  not  been 
mollified  by  Franklin's  appointment  of  Skinner  to  the  coun- 
cil. Even  without  this  added  impetus,  the  personnel  of  the 
managers  would  have  insured  the  prosecution  of  the  case 
with  suitable  avidity.  In  the  excitement  of  the  approaching 
Revolution,  however,  counterfeiters  and  treasury  robbers 
became  of  secondary  consideration,  and  the  suit  against 
Skinner  was  never  concluded.     During  the  war,  the  ex- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  March  11,  1774. 
2Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  449. 
*N.  J.  A.,  vol.  xviii,  p.  465. 


317]  THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  ^7 

treasurer  turned  loyalist,  and  his  New  Jersey  property  was 
confiscated  and  sold.  That  may  have  afforded  some  degree 
of  consolation  to  the  ardent  spirits,  who  worked  with  such 
assiduity,  in  session  and  out  of  session,  for  his  removal. 

This  subject  has  been  treated  in  such  detail  because  of 
the  insight  which  it  so  clearly  shows  of  the  workings  and 
characteristics  of  the  colonial  government.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  how  disproportionate  an  amount  of  the  public  money 
and  attention  was  consumed  by  this  unusual  but  compara- 
tively unimportant  affair.  Its  real  importance  was  magni- 
fied because  it  was  made  the  occasion  for  the  expression  of 
the  growing  hostility  felt  against  the  royal  executive.  The 
assembly  gained  the  victory  in  this  struggle.  This  was  all 
the  more  significant,  inasmuch  as  the  victory  was  in  the 
field  of  finance.  Another  step  was  gained  in  the  ladder  up 
which  the  assembly  was  ever  slowly  but  surely  climbing, 
to  make  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature  of  undoubted 
supremacy  in  the  affairs  of  the  colony. 

In  financial  affairs,  the  New  Jersey  Assembly  succeeded 
in  gaining  unquestioned  control.  Despite  the  protests  of 
the  royal  officials  at  home  and  in  the  colony,  the  lower 
house  continually  asserted  and  stubbornly  maintained  the 
principle  that  it  alone  could  originate  and  alter  money 
bills.  Payments  for  the  usual  expenses  of  government  were 
made  by  a  warrant  of  the  governor,  with  the  consent  of  the 
council,  upon  the  provincial  treasurers.  Accounts  were  to 
be  audited  by  crown  officers. 

The  money  raised  for  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the 
war  was  paid  out  in  an  irregular  manner.  Commissioners, 
independent  of  the  governor,  were  appointed  for  carrying 
into  execution  the  purposes  of  the  acts  for  aiding  the  king 
in  military  operations.  The  commissioners  were  made  ac- 
countable to  the  assembly  only,  which  by  such  acts  was 


3i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY  [318 

given  the  power  of  allowing  or  disallowing  accounts.1  In 
1759,  Bernard  complained  of  this  irregular  practise  of 
issuing  warrants  to  persons  accountable  to  the  assembly.2 
An  additional  instruction  was  thereupon  sent  to  him, 
whereby  he  was  ordered  to  refuse  his  assent  to  any  bills  for 
raising  money  unless  the  sums  appropriated  were  to  be  upon 
warrant  of  the  governor  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
council.3  The  accounts  were  in  future  issued  upon  warrant 
of  the  governor,  but  were  not  audited  by  royal  officials. 
The  treasurers  were  regularly  ordered  by  the  assembly  to 
lay  their  accounts  before  the  house,  and  a  joint  committee 
of  the  assembly  and  council  inspected  them. 

In  March,  1774,  doubtless  as  a  result  of  the  treasury 
robbery,  an  act  was  passed  "  to  oblige  the  Treasurers  of 
the  Colony  of  New  Jersey  to  give  Security  for  the  due 
Execution  of  their  Offices  and  to  prescribe  the  Mode  in 
which  the  same  Security  shall  be  taken."  4  Before  any 
public  money  was  put  into  his  hands,  the  treasurer  was  to 
give  bond  for  £10,000  proclamation  money.  The  governor, 
council  and  assembly  were  to  be  the  judges  of  the  sufficiency 
of  the  security.  This  act,  entirely  laudable,  had  the  effect 
of  more  properly  securing  the  public  funds. 

lN.  J.  A.,  vol.  ix,  p.  154. 

*ffid*»  P-  154-  zIbid„  p.  158. 

*Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  447- 


VITA 

Edgar  Jacob  Fisher  was  born  in  Rochester,  New  York, 
in  1885,  and  received  his  public  and  high  school  education 
in  that  city.  In  September,  1903,  he  entered  the  University 
of  Rochester,  obtaining  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  from 
that  institution  in  June,  1906.  The  year  1906- 1907  was 
spent  in  pursuing  graduate  studies  under  Prof.  William  C. 
Morey  and  Prof.  George  M.  Forbes,  at  the  University  of 
Rochester,  and  in  June,  1907,  the  author  of  this  study  re- 
ceived the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts.  Having  matriculated 
at  Columbia  University,  he  spent  the  next  two  years  in  resi- 
dence at  that  institution.  He  attended  the  seminars  of  Prof. 
Herbert  L.  Osgood,  and  Prof.  William  A.  Dunning,  and 
courses  under  Professors  Osgood,  Dunning,  Burgess, 
Sloane,  Robinson,  Seligman,  Seager,  and  Shepherd.  Dur- 
ing the  year,  1909- 19 10,  he  was  principal  of  the  Roselle 
Park  (New  Jersey)  High  School. 


1RSTTY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

Th«  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  ot 
This  book  mou  wh.ch         Wed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  imme*ate^ecall_ 


WW  5  '67 1 


A£A^& 


7^r-9T95TT*" 


OCT 


IN  STACKS 


RLCfclVtU 


WTTS^-llAM 


P9AN  ©tei*r, 


A 


•^ 


LD  2lA-60m-7,  66 
(G4427sl0)476B 


# 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


